Court of Petty Appeals: Consumers Resolutely Opposed to the NaCl Heap (CRONCH) v. Conagra Brands


Consumers Resolutely Opposed to the NaCl Heap (CRONCH) 
v. 
Conagra Brands 
76 U.Va 17 (2024) 


Allard, C.J., delivering the opinion of the court.

This case comes before us on appeal from the District Court of Petty Complaints. Petitioner, Consumers Resolutely Opposed to the NaCl Heap (CRONCH), is a group of students interested in “preserving the high quality of Student Affairs snacks that the founders intended.” CRONCH brought this suit after “an unfortunate snack experience” involving Respondent’s sunflower seeds. Respondent, Conagra Brands, sells various packaged foodstuffs, including the product at issue in this case, DAVID Sunflower Seeds. Petitioner alleged in their complaint that the amount of salt in a snack bag of DAVID seeds is “excessive” and “unreasonable as a matter of law.” Conagra moved to dismiss the suit for failure to state a petty claim. The District Court granted Conagra’s motion, reasoning that while students have a right to a good meal, those rights do not extend to snacks like the ones at issue in this case. This appeal followed. We granted cert to determine whether Students’ alimentary rights extend to snacks from the Student Affairs Office. Because the District Court failed to appropriately weigh this Court’s precedent protecting student’s right to eat for free, we reverse.


Background

DAVID Sunflower Seeds is a well-known sunflower seed snack product, made available in several flavors, including jalapeño, buffalo, and sour cream & onion. At issue in this case is the original salted and roasted variety. These snacks are marketed and distributed widely across various retail outlets and in the Student Affairs Office. Members of CRONCH, all students at the Law School, allege that they grabbed a bag of DAVID Sunflowers Seeds in the early months of 2024. These students, initially unfamiliar with the brand, reported examining it thinking, “Oh, seeds? Birds eat those. They must be healthy.” Upon tasting them, the CRONCH students realized their mistake. They noted an exceptionally high salt content, prompting disgust and concern. Not wanting to consume enough salt to kill a horse, some students threw the snack away, feeling shame for wasting valuable SA Snacks. Others, feeling compelled to finish the bag, suffered severe dehydration from doing so.

The record reveals that a forty-six-gram “snack size” bag of original flavor DAVID Sunflowers Seeds—the kind available in Student Affairs—contains 1,960 milligrams of salt, equivalent to 85 percent of the recommended daily value of salt and comprising more than 4 percent of the snack by weight. The CRONCH students complain that no reasonable person would willingly consume this amount of salt in one sitting and that Conagra should thus be required to put a warning label on the packaging indicating that the snack is “inedibly salty.” Conagra responds by citing product reviews purporting to show that many consumers enjoy the high salinity of their products. Resp’t’s Br. 12 (“The level of saltiness is right where it needs to be.⁦”). The Court, its Justices having sampled the product, agree wholeheartedly with CRONCH. But we must nonetheless consider Conagra’s legal obligations under these saline circumstances.


I

Jurisdiction is proper in this case. Conagra has deliberately availed itself of the Law School's market by entering its products into the stream of snackage. And the CRONCH students' complaint—in essence, that some of the free snacks the Law School provides them are too salty—is undoubtedly petty. We may thus proceed to the legal sufficiency of CRONCH’s complaint.

 

II

This Court has a sacred duty to “defend the right of citizens of UVA Law to a decent meal.” UVA Law v. Barracks Road Chipotle, 74 U.Va. 9 (2021). In upholding that duty, this Court has repeatedly held that students’ alimentary rights may be asserted against parties providing or consuming food at the Law School. See Hungry People v. Law School Student Orgs, 75 U.Va. 12 (2022) (enjoining all student organizations from preventing students from eating free lunch until after events); Students v. Empty Food Table, 75 U.Va. 10 (2022) (enjoining 1Ls from taking food from events hosted by organizations of which they are not members); 1Ls v. 2Ls and 3Ls, 75 U.Va. 6 (2022) (enjoining 1Ls from consuming more than a third of the free food at Law School events).

CRONCH argues that these cases establish students’ rights to quality snacks from any source that willingly offers up food. CRONCH also makes compelling policy arguments. Noting that grocery prices are at record highs, they ask the Court to protect students’ wallets and stomachs.

In response, Conagra distinguishes this Court’s alimentary rights cases on the ground that they involved meals, not snacks. Conagra concedes that students have a right to a decent meal but argues that extending that right to encompass snacks would open the floodgates to a slew of food and drink-related litigation. Conagra suggests in its brief that students might sue the City of Charlottesville for its water quality since city water is distributed to the students via the Law School’s water fountains. Or worse yet, disgruntled editors might sue the Law Weekly for the quality of food provided at its meetings.[1]

Conagra’s concerns are mostly misplaced. The study of law is hungry work, and law students’ rights to quality food must be vigorously protected. Even if our holding today may encourage opportunistic litigation by gourmands, courts can adequately dispose of meritless food claims by applying the Stomach Formula. If the burden of improving the quality of food is less than the probability of students’ being dissatisfied times the extent of students’ hanger, then the failure to make such an improvement likely constitutes an actionable diminution of students’ alimentary rights.

Applying this formula to the instant case, we find that CRONCH has stated a sufficient claim for denial of food rights. The students ask for a mere warning label indicating the honestly ridiculously high salt content of DAVID sunflower seeds. The burden on Conagra to apply such a label is minimal. Admittedly, the extent of students’ hanger in cases involving snacks is diminished. Disappointment with the quality of a snack is unlike cases where there is a delay or outright denial of a meal, which has the potential to upend a student’s entire day. But here, the probability of dissatisfaction saves CRONCH’s claim. Mineral-craving ibexes notwithstanding, there can be no doubt that few would willingly reach for Conagra’s seeds knowing they have been imbued with the flavor of the Dead Sea. For these reasons, we conclude that the District Court prematurely dismissed CRONCH’s claim. CRONCH is entitled to have their stomachs full and their claim heard in full. The District Court’s order dismissing the case is thus reversed.


---
tya2us@virginia.edu


[1] Conagra’s second example is puzzling, since the Domino’s pizza provided to Law Weekly editors has never before been complained of.

Hot Bench: Monica Sandu '24


Why did you come to UVA Law and what are your plans post-grad?

Well, I grew up in Virginia—in fact, I’m from Blacksburg, the home of Virginia Tech! I did my undergrad at William & Mary, where I was a double major in International Relations and French. My sophomore year, I took a class on international law, which presented some fascinating questions: What is law? How do laws shape our philosophy of the world? I wanted to explore those questions and to make a positive difference in people’s lives through what I had learned. My older sister went to UVA for undergrad, so I’d visited Main Grounds with her a few times, and she always spoke very highly of Charlottesville and of the UVA community. As I looked more into it, I found that UVA Law was exactly where I wanted to be.

After graduation (and the Bar!), I’m going to be working at a plaintiff’s class action litigation firm in Prairie Village, Kansas near Kansas City! I had a wonderful 2L summer there, and I’m excited to be going back!

 

Any favorite memories from law school/what will you miss the most when graduating?

I’ll definitely miss my 1L section–shoutout to Section A! Some of my favorite memories are all the fun get-togethers we’ve had over the years. We had an end-of-year’s “Oscars” after the first year, where I won the award for Best Fun Facts! I now keep the mini-Oscar trophy on my desk next to my pencil holder. I’ll also miss the fun and fascinating classes I have taken; some personal favorites were Roman Law and Hallmarks of Distinguished Advocacy. Most of all, I’ll miss seeing all of my friends in person every day.

 

What would you consider your Law Weekly legacy? Any advice for future production editors?

You mean besides introducing the Law Weekly staff to my impeccable taste in music at every meeting? Well, the job of the Production Editor (besides controlling the Spotify) is to put the paper together. From a strictly technical sense, I could say my legacy is my eye for kerning.

In a more personal sense, I consider my legacy to be those times that people enjoyed my work, when it made their day a little brighter or taught them something new. My fall semester of 1L, I drew a cartoon of a cow in a suit holding a gavel in its mouth, with the caption “Mooooooot Court.” I remember seeing someone in ScoCo reading the paper, pointing it out to their friend, and having a laugh. That’s something that’s really stayed with me.

As for future production editors, proficiency with InDesign will come with time and practice. Images should fully fill the columns and align with the top of the text; otherwise, text-wrapping is a nightmare. Beware: InDesign has no spell check. Use your powers of Spotify wisely.

 

What did you do for spring break?

I spent the week up in Northern Virginia with my family! While there, we went to a special exhibit called “The Future of Orchids: Conservation and Collaboration” at the Smithsonian American Art Museum in Washington, D.C. Overall, it’s been a fun, relaxing time with loved ones.

 

Lightning round: Most recent Netflix (or other) binge?

This isn’t quite “binging,” but I’m into a podcast called Terrible Lizards. It’s all about dinosaurs and covers everything from deep dives on individual species to dinosaur behavior and insight into the field of paleontology. It’s great to listen to on long drives.

 

Favorite pizza place? 

The Law Weekly office on Monday afternoons.

 

Music while studying or silence? If music, what songs?

Typically, I prefer to work in silence or to pure instrumentals. My go-to study music for a while was Vivaldi’s The Four Seasons. I’m also a fan of waltzes and of John Powell’s score from How to Train Your Dragon. I’ve recently been listening to playlists of fantasy/adventure Medieval-esque music.

 

Lastly, is there anything about you that UVA Law students don’t already know that you wish to share?

I took mechanical drafting for two years when I was in high school, where I learned to create technical drawings of machine parts and tools both by hand and using computer software. I took the official exam and got my mechanical drafter’s certification when I was a junior, though it’s expired now. It’s not a universe away from what I do now with the Law Weekly, though prior to becoming production editor, the last time I had used InDesign was as a high school freshman. I guess you can say . . . graphic design is my passion.


---
Interviewed by Mark Graff ‘26

Court of Petty Appeals: Ex parte Law Weekly


Ex parte Law Weekly 
76 U.Va 16 (2024) 


J. ALLARD delivers the opinion of the Court.

This ex parte proceeding was brought before the court by members of the Executive Board following the events of February 26. During the meeting for annual elections, former Editor-in-Chief, Nikolai Morse ’24 explained to the Law Weekly staff that the Board had agreed to adopt election procedures restricting the eligibility of candidates for Editor-in-Chief. Specifically, Morse said that only graduating 3Ls who had previously served as Managing Editor would be eligible for the top position. The Board members, who claim to have never agreed to these terms, recognized Morse’s efforts as an attempted coup d’etat. Immediately, the four other members of the Board—Monica Sandu ’24, Garrett Coleman ’25, Ethan Brown ’25, and Andrew Allard ’25—voted to override the Editor-in-Chief and allow the staff to elect a new Executive Board.

After a secret ballot vote led to a resounding defeat for Morse—who received only two votes written in remarkably similar handwriting—the Executive Board sought to swear in the newly elected Editor-in-Chief, Andrew Allard. Morse refused to recognize the results of the election, claiming that it was held in violation of the Law Weekly Constitution. Morse then called on the student body to resist the “puppet Executive Board” that he claimed was installed by Darden students.

Morse has locked and barricaded himself in the Law Weekly office—and reportedly swallowed all of the keys. The Executive Board has been governing the newspaper in exile. They ask the Court for declaratory relief recognizing Allard as Editor-in-Chief and for a writ of mandamus ordering Morse to reopen the Law Weekly offices. Because Morse has fortified his compound to keep out process servers, the Court has permitted the Executive Board to pursue this action ex parte.

 

I

The first issue before the Court is whether the Law Weekly’s Constitution permits the Board to adopt the candidate eligibility restrictions that Morse attempted to apply in this year’s elections. We hold that it does.

Article IV of the Constitution provides broad guidelines for the organization’s electoral procedures. Section 1 specifies that elections shall be held during the fifth week of the spring semester and authorizes the Editorial Board to “promulgate and maintain rules regarding the specific procedures for elections.” The Constitution imposes no explicit restrictions on these rules and procedures, though positions are restricted to “students in at least their second semester.”

The Board notoriously employs arcane methods to select its successors. Many successful “campaigns” result from backroom dealmaking, and some Editors-in-Chief have opted to hand-pick their successors. But never before has an Editor-in-Chief functionally handpicked himself as successor—until now.

Despite its historical practice, the Board argued that the word “election” as used in Article IV implies contestation. We disagree. There are many U.S. states in which elections are hardly contested, if they can even be described as free and fair. See e.g., the “Commonwealth” of Massachusetts. Moreover, we find no constitutional provision forbidding the restrictions at issue here. The Constitution empowers the Board to adopt “rules regarding the specific procedures for elections.”  The Court declines to impose atextual limits on that power. Indeed, the fact that the Constitution restricts Board positions to “students in . . . their second semester” suggests that the Framers did not oppose seniority-based eligibility requirements.

 

II

The second issue in this case is whether the Executive Board properly exercised its Article I authority to call for popular elections. We hold that they did.

Article I, Section 2 establishes the Executive Board of the Law Weekly. It is “comprised of an Editor-in-Chief, Executive Editor, Managing Editor, Production Editor, and Features Editor.” Section 2 makes the Executive Board “responsible of [sic] the quality and good taste of the publication.” It also empowers the Executive Board to “overrule decisions of the Editor-in-Chief” by a three-fifths majority.

Section 3 establishes the Editorial Board which is “comprised of the members of the Executive Board,” along with other editors as appointed by a majority of the Executive Board. The Editorial Board may also overrule the Editor-in-Chief but by a two-thirds majority.

Two arguments against the popular elections were offered in this case. Firstly, the Executive Board, having responsibility for “the quality and good taste” of the Law Weekly, cannot responsibly allow the position to be popularly elected. That voters ultimately chose Allard as Morse’s successor is offered as evidence showing the folly of this populist approach. Secondly, it is argued that under the unitary executive board theory, the Editor-in-Chief may exercise unbridled authority when Board members are found to be in mutiny. We reject both of these arguments.

The unitary executive board theory finds no support in the Constitution’s text or historical practice. This Court will not allow such laughable doctrines to impede its sacred duty to harass the Editor-in-Chief on their way out.[1] And while we agree that the editors have committed an embarrassing blunder by electing Allard as Editor-in-Chief, we cannot allow their folly to override the Constitution. As discussed in Part I, Article IV grants the Editorial Board power to set election rules. Because more than two-thirds of the Board voted to hold popular elections, we are bound to recognize the results. The Law Weekly staff are no doubt happy to have rid themselves of the tyrannical dictator Morse. As though they wished on a monkey’s paw, they are now stuck with the democratically-elected Mr. Allard. May God have mercy on their souls—because this Court sure as hell won’t.

 It is so ordered.


Morse, C.J. Emeritus, Dissenting.

Et tu, Brute?

In the fall of 2021, I entered these august halls and set my sights on the most prestigious and powerful organization in UVA Law: the Virginia Law Weekly. I now find myself, having labored tirelessly for years in service of this great publication, being pilloried by those I thought my loyal servants comrades. Alas, fate is a cruel mistress.

Each week when I shared free pizza, my sharp wit, and brilliant story ideas, I imagined myself amongst friends. I thought that we were engaged in pursuit of a common mission[2] and yet did not realize that these erstwhile editors laid the blame for the fault in their stars at my feet. And whilst any impartial observer could not help but agree that during my tenure a Colossus bestrode the Virginia Law Weekly, who could have predicted I would be brought so low. And now my executioners ask me to go gentle into that good night!

Yet, if it is possible to measure the success of one’s leadership, is that measure not found in the ability of the organization to thrive in your absence? This publication will undoubtedly continue to grow and reach new heights, and since it seems the UVA Law administration (and my wife) refuses to let me enroll for another year, I will have to move on.

Despite my fervent appeals to every legal trick (and a few extralegal ones) that I’ve learned the past few years, I cannot deny the merit of Chief Justice Allard’s arguments. While my honor and dedication to this great publication compels my dissent, I will rest easy knowing that the Law Weekly is in good (if perhaps a bit power-hungry) hands.

I very respectfully dissent.


[1] See UVA Law Student Body v. Tonseth, 74 U.Va 10 (2021) (ordering the Editor-in-Chief to “hard labor and cultural reeducation training, to be carried out in the Darden basement”); see also Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U.Va 16 (2023) (dragging the outgoing Editor-in-Chief for confusing two admittedly similar editors).

[2] Toppling the Virginia Law Review, of course.

Hot Bench: Nikolai Morse '24


 

 

Hi! The easiest question first, where are you from? And how did you end up at U VA Law?

I was born in Mainz, Germany. My dad was in the Army, my mother grew up there. We moved to the suburbs of Chicago when I was like two and I grew up there most of my life.

 

Behold my Intelligentsia coffee mug!

I love intelligentsia! So yeah, I lived in the Chicago suburbs, then went to William & Mary for undergrad and after working in Chicago and the Bay Area for a few years, I came here for law school. Virginia schools just keep letting me in!

 

Relatable. So the big question everyone wants to know: how do you feel about your tenure as all-powerful leader at Law Weekly?

 I mean, it's been great. It’s probably been the thing I've spent the most time on in law school, even before being EIC. I’m really gonna miss it.

It’s this thing that…doesn't really add much to your resume. But I spent a lot of time on it over the years. I would just say law school is already super serious. And so it's nice to have something that kind of helps us to poke fun at this whole crazy experience.

 

That’s a good way of putting it and it is so important to have a break from the seriousness. What has been the best and worst experience with Law Weekly?

 I think the toughest thing was when three members of the undergrad football team were killed. It wasn’t something I was EIC for, but I was on the board and we talked a lot about how to address it. And it’s weird because I wonder how many people actually read the Law Weekly, but of those that do, we still want to try to do the best we can to be really thoughtful about these events.

I think the best experience might have actually been from 1L year when I wrote an article for the April Fools edition which was about how Georgetown had fallen out of the T14. And I satirically joked that they bribed their way back in. But then the day before we published our paper, the new rankings dropped and they were number 14 again. An April Fools’ miracle.

 

That's awesome. So, after law school will you be pursuing another position with—and I quote—"absolute power and total immunity from prosecution?”

 Oh, gosh. Well, I'll actually be clerking for a federal judge.

 

Oh whoops. I won’t write that.

 No you should, it would be funny. But no, I'm pretty sure I'm an at-will employee. But it’ll be a great experience. I'll clerk and then I'll go to a law firm.

 

What drew you to Law Weekly?

 I went to the student activities fair my 1L year and they just had the most ridiculous table. Like, they all had Red Solo Cups and a boom box playing, and the EIC at that time was a very bro guy called Phil who is awesome—and he's really terrific!—but he and everyone else were just vibing and hanging out. I was like, this seems way more fun than some other things.

 I also worked in finance for six years before law school. So the longest writing I did were emails. And I really wanted an easy, fun way to get reps in writing and just banging out 800 words every week. Super helpful.

 

Love that! Last big question. I was at the SBA election debates you and Andrew were moderating, so I figured we could turn the turntables on your questions. If you were running for SBA President, what would your platform be?

 Um, actual transparency. I want to know how much money SBA has and where it all goes.

 

Oh I do remember you were very focused on that.

 It's kind of crazy. This is a public institution and it's our money. So I don't understand what the harm is in telling us how much there is and where it's going. I imagine most of it just goes to the events that we all want. So anyways I'd say actual transparency, more events, and basically I think that's the only function of student government. Just tell us what's going on and what you're doing. Give us more things to do, more events. And then like every once in a while when there's tension between different communities at the law school, try to mediate those disputes.

 

 Ok, lightning round! What day does the week start, Sunday or Monday?

 Monday?

 

Why?

Because you don't have to do anything until Monday.

 

Copy that. Um, Wes Anderson—Yes or no?

Yeah, sure. The um, was it the Darjeeling limited?

 

That sounds familiar.

You don't know your Wes Anderson?

 

No. I don't like Wes Anderson.

You don't like Wes Anderson??

 

No!

Wes Anderson is definitely into Wes Anderson.

 

I feel like it’s the Tumblr aesthetic but not in a fun nostalgic way.

It depends what Tumblr you're on. There’s a whole Edward Scissorhands Tumblr, which is a whole other corner.

 

That’s true. Get you someone that can do both, I guess. Best place in Cville for French small plates and super cool Front of House staff?

Oh, C&O obviously.[1]*

 

Obviously.


---
Interviewed by Nicky Demitry '26 


[1]* alley light is disowning u

Court of Petty Appeals: Not All Friends are Lawyers (NAFAL) v. Student Bar Association


Not All Friends are Lawyers (NAFAL)
v.
Student Bar Association

76 U.Va 15 (2024)


Coleman, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

We are here to review the constitutionality of a new piece of compromise legislation aimed at securing the Barrister’s Ball. After passing the divided chambers of the Student Bar Association, L.B. 01 was signed into law on the eve of the 2024 Ball. It was immediately challenged by the nonprofit group Not All Friends are Lawyers, or NAFAL, for violating their due process and equal protection rights. The lawsuit was joined by Lawyers with Friends, who added a claim that the law violates their rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause. In the spirit of judicial restraint, for which I am widely admired, we reject these claims and affirm the constitutionality of L.B. 01 in full. We also choose to address complaints of students who purchased non-drinking tickets but still wanted access to the open bar.

 

I[1]

A crisis at the Ball has been steadily growing for years. In 2023, the ticket selection process resulted in much angst for the 1Ls, who were barely even guaranteed space for themselves. At a political rally following the ticket release, then-president Juhi Desai ’23 was met with thunderous applause after suggesting that we “shut down the Ball until we figure out what the hell is going on!” Other influential law students suggested that we restrict tickets to outsiders with J.D.s.

This discontent manifested itself in compromise legislation, which aimed to limit ticket sales to outsiders while still keeping the Ball somewhat open. L.B. 01 has three contested sections. The first orders that the Ball co-chairs immediately close ticket sales when the flow of non-law students reaches 300. § 2 narrows the definition of “eligible guest” to “husband, wife, spouse, boyfriend, girlfriend, or significant other.” And § 3 allows the co-chairs to summarily eject any non-law student who fails to laugh at a law student’s legal joke.

 

II

NAFAL first posits that the new bill is violative of their due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. With respect to the Fifth Amendment, they have a point here. Any guest, having failed to laugh at a law student’s joke, can summarily lose the rest of her night. The ticket would be worthless. Travel expenses would be wasted. However, these guests would be entitled to adequate process. First, they would be notified beforehand of the standard: laugh or be ejected. Second, the Barrister’s co-chairs would still serve as factfinders to determine whether the slight had actually happened. This Court is fine with limited adjudications taking place outside of petty courts, especially when efficiency demands it at events like the Ball.

With respect to the equal protection claim, we first need to note that non-law student guests are not a protected class. And rational basis review is a forgiving master. Counsel did point out that I am sometimes willing to apply a forceful rational basis review.[2] But counsel failed to observe that the designation in that case was harming me.

The argument under the Privileges and Immunities Clause is most interesting, but it also fails. It posits that a foundational privilege of being a law student is taking people to our fancy functions. The nerdy can show off, the status-obsessed can go on about how many resources big firms have to fund these events, and the average law student can share a good night with their significant other. While I am tempted by this argument, I think it ultimately misstates history because it presupposes that law students have always had many guests to choose from before a Ball.

 

III

This Court would also like to address complaints with respect to the drinking tickets. Some have complained that it was an invasion of privacy to mark the non-drinkers with permanent ink to prevent them from accessing the open bar. We find this restriction to be a reasonable means of implementing a valid fiscal goal. According to one of the event’s organizers, revenue increased by nearly 20 percent in response to the preliminary scare tactics. Barrister’s cannot operate if a critical mass of cheap law students buy discounted tickets and then commit honor code violations to get drinks. So, while physically marking non-drinkers was an aggressive choice, we understand the necessity.

 

IV

In response to widespread dissatisfaction, our legislative branch came to a compromise to secure the Ball. This Court is not prepared to let the rights of non-law students diminish the enjoyment of our future lawyers. The judgment of the appellate division is reversed and L.B. 01 is good law.


Sandu, J., concurring in the judgment.

While I believe the Court’s decision to be sound, I write separately to propose a long-term solution to the recurring problem of limited Barrister’s tickets. Barrister’s is to former prom royalty what the Libel Show is to former theater kids. It is a cornerstone to the mental and social well-being of all law students. And yet, no law student is an island. While I understand the necessity of restricting ticket sales in the current state of events, I  cannot help but be reminded of how every year, at least some in our community will be disappointed by what should be, in the words of High School Musical 3: Senior Year, “a night to remember.”

The root of the problem appears to be a space limitation—both the Forum Hotel and Boar’s Head Resort before it simply cannot accommodate every single law student and their entourage who wants to party. Our current building has housed the Law School since 1974.[3] During that time, Darden first moved out of Slaughter Hall into its current building in 1996, and now has the brand new Forum Hotel at its disposal. Why should the Law School content itself with what Darden has left behind? The most obvious solution, therefore, is to invest the proceeds of the ticket sales this year into the construction of a new Barrister’s Ball venue on North Grounds, one grand enough to accommodate even the most social of law students. Only then can we truly be free to party.


[1] Actual headings, while helpful, are for the lower petty courts.

[2]  See Students for Attending Cool Events v. UVA Law Faculty, 76 U.Va. 13 (2024) (Coleman, J., dissenting) (“Because excluding me from any event reeks of arbitrariness, I would hold that the ‘open to faculty’ exclusion violates the Equal Protection Clause.”).

[3] https://www.law.virginia.edu/charlottesville/layout.

Hot Bench: Isabel Cook '25


Hi, Isabel! Thanks for joining me for this week’s Hot Bench. To get started, I recently saw your name on a school-wide email blast with the prestigious title of Head Field Monitor. Can you tell me more about that?

I don’t know about prestigious, but I am pretty excited to be helping out with this year’s UVA Law Softball Tournament! We’re welcoming dozens of other law schools to Grounds for a really fun weekend (and raising money for a good cause), so I really encourage everyone to get involved by volunteering as a Field Monitor.

 

Great, let’s get back to basics. Where are you from, where did you go for undergrad, and what were you up to before coming to law school?

I’m from Columbia, South Carolina, and went down the road (literally) to the University of South Carolina. Go Cocks!!! After undergrad, I worked as a legal assistant at a criminal defense firm. Somehow that didn’t deter me from applying to law school. 

 

It seems that you’ve been on this path for a bit of a while. With that said, what would you be doing right now if you hadn’t come to law school?

Given that I was a History/Political Science double major, probably toiling away in some other grad program with worse employment outcomes. Maybe doing astrological readings for money.

 

What brought you to UVA?

Honestly, it was always my top choice—and when I visited Grounds, it only reaffirmed that this was where I wanted to be. I really fell for the school’s focus on quality of life and collegiality, which luckily have turned out to be more than just talking points. Although I was extremely disappointed to get here and find out that kegs in the library are a far-off dream of law students past.

 

I heard you had a bit of an unusual start to 1L Fall. Can you tell me more about that?

I managed to pick up COVID-19 on the D.C. Metro right before school started and had to miss orientation, so I didn’t exactly get to make a good first impression. My section endearingly dubbed me “Weird COVID Girl.” I got over the COVID part but have yet to beat the “weird” allegations.

 

The spring semester is certainly jam-packed with lots of events. Is there anything you are particularly looking forward to right now?

Even though there are so many fun things going on at the Law School, I’m probably most looking forward to seeing Mason Ramsey at the Jefferson in March. I can’t believe how far Walmart Yodel Boy has come. I hope Lil Nas X comes out for a guest appearance.

 

Lightning round!

Favorite late-night food?

Cookout, of course.

 

I’m glad to see another Cookout stan in the UVA Law community. For those who are still working on perfecting their order, can you share your go-to menu items?

Chicken tender tray with double onion rings and a chocolate peanut butter milkshake. (BYO Lactaid.)

 

What’s an overrated superpower?

Time travel.

 

What is your least favorite sound?

CHEWING NOISES.

 

Would you rather wear a Clemson jersey for one day or be cold-called every day for the rest of law school?

Cold-called!!!!! No question.

 

Favorite class so far?

It’s really hard to pick, but I’d have to say Civil Rights Litigation with Jeffries.


---
Interviewed by Brent Rice '25

Court of Petty Appeals: Students Attempting Leap-Year Ironman (SALYI) v. Class Trips During February


Students Attempting Leap-Year Ironman (SALYI)
v.
Class Trips During February

76 U.Va 14 (2024)

 

Allen, J., delivers the opinion of the court

Petitioners are current students torn between two worlds—that of the gunner and that of the partier. Specifically, these students come to this Court seeking injunctive relief preventing their clinics and classes from conducting trips scheduled to occur during the month of February, so as to accommodate their attempt to “ironman” by attending all Feb Club events, as well as seeking to prevent any professors or administration officials from scheduling any such events in future Februarys.[1] Because this Court is compelled to uphold the collegial atmosphere for which the Law School is renowned, we shall accordingly GRANT Petitioner’s application for a preliminary injunction.

Petitioners come before this Court as a class—though they differ in class-year and course enrollment, all share a desire to seek ironman status, a goal which they claim will be stymied by commitments for class trips. Accordingly, they seek relief before this tribunal to prevent such irreparable injury which would occur without our intercession. Because ironman status demands attendance throughout the month, and cannot be acquired retrospectively, any breaking of their streak would represent an irreparable injury to the Petitioners. Their claim is strengthened by the fact that, as a leap year, ironman bragging rights for this year are both unique and unattainable for any current students who miss out on the opportunity.

Having established sufficient injury, we must then balance the equities and harms between the public and parties, as well as Petitioners’ likelihood of success on the merits. The equities clearly militate towards the students, as any harm from the inability to attend trips would be suffered primarily by Petitioners themselves, while a generalized inability of students to attend Feb Club events threatens the entire Law School community.[2]

As to likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, Petitioners’ argument that the scheduling represents a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment is unavailing—characterization of such trips as a punishment is doubtful, and regardless cannot be unusual as field trips have a long pedigree from the founding.[3]However, Petitioners’ argument from reliance is persuasive. Petitioners, like many others, chose to attend UVA in part due to its collegial nature, embodied in part by such social activities as Feb Club. Disallowing their participation would be unfair, as Petitioners reasonably relied upon representations that the Law School is “No. 1 in Quality of Life.”[4]

Respondents rest chiefly upon their assertion that the relief sought by Petitioners is beyond the bounds of this Court to grant, invoking various precedents on injunctive power and standards. While well-grounded in lofty theory and case law, Respondents falter in mistaking our limited subject-matter jurisdiction for inferiority. This Court is supreme and unaccountable within our domain, and thus enjoys the authority to issue any judgements which are necessary for the vindication of petty rights, as all rights must have an appropriate remedy.

In light of the foregoing considerations (and despite the deep misgivings this Justice has in siding with Petitioners), this Court is persuaded that compelling students to attend trips during the month of February would impermissibly intrude upon their rights. Accordingly, the administration shall either allow any student still actively engaged in ironmanning to miss said events without any prejudice to their grade, or alternatively reschedule said events for no earlier than March 1. While the Court expects this ruling to have little impact on 1Ls, none of whom are among the group before us, the Court writes to clarify that to the extent any 1L claims entitlements under this ruling they shall be disqualified from joining the class, in line with our longstanding line of precedent establishing their ineligibility to relief.

So ordered.


J. Sandu, concurring in the judgment.

I concur that an injunction is proper in this case. However, I disagree with J. Allen’s assessment that ironman rights “cannot be acquired retrospectively.” Given that 2024 is a leap year, I would propose this Court craft a remedy whereby those students who missed a Feb Club event be permitted to make up their Ironman time with an equivalent amount of partying on February 29.


Rice, J., concurring.

I agree with the majority that an inability to attend Feb Club events harms the Law School community and, further, that the inability to ironman successfully imposes direct harm on each individual claimant via deprivation of bragging rights and eternal glory. However, I disagree with the remedy provided and thus am unable to join in that part of the opinion.

It seems to me that a balance of the equities involved reveals a superior solution to the one the majority has adopted. Rather than providing for students to miss trips or events that conflict with ironmanning or rescheduling the events, I would grant an injunction requiring SBA to allow those students who miss a Feb Club party for a sanctioned school activity to achieve ironman status by providing a receipt that proves that they consumed an alcoholic beverage while out of town on the date in question. 

Indeed, a similar remedy has been successfully employed in Penn State Café 210 West’s “55 Days of Café” competition which provides, “Out-of-town absences can be excused with a receipt showing a food or beverage item from a bar or restaurant outside of [Penn State’s immediate area].”[5]

By my estimate, this is the appropriate remedy as it furthers the interests of all parties involved—the administration’s interest in having more students available to attend their events and the student body’s significant interest in drinking more heavily and more frequently.


Allard, J., dissenting.

The majority today holds that students have a right to attend Feb Club events that supersedes their scholarly obligations. In doing so, the Court fails to follow its obligations under the canon of uncomical avoidance. This Court has consistently acknowledged that one of the funniest dispositions of a case is to acknowledge a claimant’s injury but refuse to grant relief.[6] And as astute readers will notice, this Kafka-esque approach to law also finds support in recent U.S. Supreme Court precedents. I would thus hold that those crazy students that wish to acironman all Feb Club events have a right to do so, but that their rights are unenforceable without enabling legislation enacted by the very Professors against whom they brought suit.


[1] Some have accused this Court of conflicts of interest in their dual roles as students and justices. Though we have consistently denied any legitimacy to such arguments, as this Court abides by the same high ethical standards enjoyed by illustrious members of the Supreme Court, this Justice would like to dispel such accusations by clarifying that they neither have attended any Feb Club events nor have any of their courses been so kind as to offer field trips.

[2] It has been suggested that the inability of Petitioners to attend Feb Club events would actually benefit the greater Law School community, insofar as they are annoying gunners. While this may be true, Equal Protection concerns command us to treat them as any other member of the student body in assessing their claim.

[3] Grand Tours, instilling education by traveling through Europe, were a well-established upper-class rite of passage. Some have characterized Thomas Jefferson’s time in France as a diplomat from 1784–89 as a field trip.

[4] https://www.law.virginia.edu/facts-and-stats/overview.

[5] http://www.cafe210.net/55-days.html.

[6] Virginia Law Review  v. Virginia Journal of International Law, 76 U.Va 3 (2023).

Hot Bench: Rachel St. Louis '26


Hi Rachel, thank you so much for sitting down with me today! Let’s start with some basics—where are you from, where did you go for undergrad, and what were you up to before coming to UVA Law?

I am from Piscataway, New Jersey. I attended Franklin & Marshall College for undergrad in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Prior to law school, I worked in the House of Representatives for the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis as an operations and press assistant, and then as the scheduler and executive assistant for Congresswoman Yvette Clarke (NY-09).

Okay, definitely an East Coast girl! Did you get a chance to visit friends and family in D.C. or back home in New Jersey over winter break?

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to make it to D.C., but I was able to spend my break with my family and friends in New Jersey and New York.

Always nice to get a chance to reconnect during break! What else did you get into over winter break?

I was able to catch up on a lot of sleep, spent time with my family, and traveled to New York quite a bit over the course of the break. I met up with some friends from college, visited museums, tried new restaurants, and explored NYC nightlife. I also attended a Brooklyn Nets game!

That’s so cool, love a good basketball game! Did they win the game?

Yes, against the Pistons!

Switching gears, having just finished your first semester, what’s been your most memorable moment or biggest takeaway that you’ll be bringing with you into the second semester?

 My most memorable moment from the first semester would have to be assisting with the choreography of our Dandelion performance at the beginning of the year. I was nervous at first because we all were just starting to get to know each other, and it was hard to figure out what would work for everyone’s skill level. Coming up with our performance took a lot of communication and collaboration, and I think that made me bond very closely with everyone in the section. We have remained a very close section and are very supportive of one another, which I’m certain will remain the same this semester.

I remember y’all’s dance—was definitely cheering on my contract’s co-section, much love for Section C! On a similar note, what’s something you’re looking forward to this semester—any elective you’re looking forward to or staple spring semester event?

I’m currently taking Feminist Jurisprudence with Professor Coughlin as one of my electives this semester. I thoroughly enjoy the course material, and I’m looking forward to what I will learn the rest of the semester. I’m also looking forward to the Softball Invitational and the opportunity to visit the wineries in Charlottesville.

I’m sure the Softball Invitational will be an experience. Are you playing with your section or joining some other teams?

I’ll be playing with my section’s team again, go SecC! I’ll also be playing with the BLSA team and Slug Slug Goose.

Your section definitely won against my section last semester, so I’m looking forward to some redemption. Okay, time for a lighting round, Valentine’s Day edition! Pink or red?

Pink.

Candy hearts or chocolates?

Chocolates.

Flowers or teddy bears?

Flowers.

What kind of flowers?

Red roses.

Favorite rom-com?

Jumping the Broom.


---
Interviewed by Ashanti Jones '26

Court of Petty Appeals: Students for Attending Cool Events (SACE) v. UVA Law Faculty, et al.


Students for Attending Cool Events (SACE)
v.
UVA Law Faculty, et al.

76 U.Va 13 (2024)


Allard, J., delivers the opinion of the court. 

I. Background

Plaintiffs, Students for Attending Cool Events (SACE) brought this action for public nuisance against the UVA Law Faculty. During the week of January 28, the Docket, a daily email update sent to members of the Law School community, listed two events titled “Law & Technology Colloquium: Jeff Kosseff of the U.S. Naval Academy” and “Faculty Workshop: Cynthia Nicoletti.” Despite being in an email also sent to all law students, these events were labeled as only “[o]pen to faculty.” SACE alleges that, in a week where other events listed in The Docket included Unified Journal Tryout Information Sessions 1 & 2 and “Academic Success Session,” the faculty-only events were “the functional equivalent of the Met Gala.” The UVA Law Faculty, perhaps fearing the wrath of Professor Nicoletti, have not disputed this characterization.

SACE seeks injunctive relief against the Faculty for listing two faculty-only events in the daily Law School email. In Count 1 of their complaint, SACE argues that the closed events are an unreasonable interference with their enjoyment of the Law School’s public amenities. Count 2 argues that listing closed events in a school-wide email is also a public nuisance because it is a “bait and switch.” SACE asks the Court to enjoin the Faculty from including such events in the school-wide email.

The Faculty respond that students are not entitled to enjoy all Law School amenities and that their exclusion from certain faculty events is reasonable as a matter of law. The Faculty further argue that the nuisance alleged in Count 2 cannot constitute a “bait and switch” if, as they argue, the exclusion in Count 1 is reasonable. We agree that the exclusive events are reasonable and judgment is entered for the Faculty on Count 1. But we are persuaded by SACE’s “bait and switch” argument and order that closed events be listed in a separate email.

 

II. Discussion

This Court has jurisdiction over “all petty disputes related to the Law School.”[1] While an action for public nuisance has never been brought before the Court of Petty Appeals, it is undoubtedly among the pettiest actions known to the common law. And, in a case resembling a public nuisance action, this Court has previously granted injunctive relief against Law School-wide conduct in an action for nuisance.[2] We thus believe it appropriate to exercise our jurisdiction over this case.

Because the material facts are not in dispute, we need only determine whether the Faculty’s undisputed conduct constitutes a public nuisance. “A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.”[3] Thus, we are presented with two principal questions: (A) Is attendance at all Law School events a “right common to the [Law School] public,” and; (B) Is it reasonable to exclude students from events listed in a school-wide email?

 

A. While law students are entitled to the enjoyment of most amenities, the Faculty may reasonably hold exclusive events.

An interference with public rights is likely unreasonable, and thus a public nuisance, if it “involves a significant interference with . . . the public safety, the public peace, the public comfort or the public convenience,” or if the conduct is “proscribed by . . . administrative regulation.”[4] This Court has generally favored students’ right to enjoy University amenities for which they have paid with their tuition.[5] Such cases have generally involved ensuring students’ physical access to spaces “held for the use and enjoyment of the public.”[6] But attendance at student organization events, and even consumption of food at such events, has been recognized as a public right enjoyed by all students.[7] Indeed, the Law School has recently emphasized the importance of the free exchange of ideas. Its speech policy forbids conduct that “interfere[s] with . . . a listener’s ability to see or hear . . . .”[8] The policy also notes that “some events at the Law School are open only to members of the Law School community.[9]

We believe that the foregoing establishes a clear preference for openness in Law School events, but it does not forbid faculty exclusive events. While we have recognized students’ right to access amenities, we have generally done so in the context of public spaces and student-organized events. We are unpersuaded by SACE’s argument that the Law School speech policy only contemplates events that are restricted to “members of the Law School community.” Rather, we believe that the policy supports the administration’s authority to limit event attendance in accordance with the event’s purpose. We thus agree with the Faculty that faculty-only events are not a public nuisance.

 

B. While it is reasonable to hold faculty-only events, listing such events in emails to the student body is a public nuisance that must be abated.

Turning to the listing of such events in the Docket, we are persuaded that doing so is a noxious “bait and switch.” For the Faculty, the most crippling fact of this case is the misleading use of the descriptor “[o]pen to faculty.” SACE emphasizes in its complaint that the “[o]pen to faculty” descriptor appears “at the every end of the event listing.” The student reader’s attention is thus drawn to the event, only to finish in disappointment. The phrase’s word choice is equally misleading. “Open to faculty” is of course a euphemistic slight intended to mean “no students allowed.”

The Virginia Law Weekly filed an amicus brief in this case, emphasizing the public convenience harms of including these closed events in the Docket. The Law Weekly’s editors rely on the Docket to select events for reporting to the student body. The editors “frequently” propose to cover such events, only to realize that they are closed to them.

We are persuaded that the public convenience harms described by SACE and the Law Weekly are severe and that the inclusion of these events in the Docket is unreasonable. Students are henceforth entitled to attend any event listed in the Docket from which they are not explicitly excluded. Accordingly, SACE’s request for injunctive relief under Count 1 is denied, and their request for injunctive relief under Count 2 is granted.


Allen, J., concurring.

While I agree the Law School should be prevented from listing faculty workshops in the Docket, I arrive at this conclusion on the basis of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. While exclusion of students itself would not rise to such a level of infringement, the advertised exclusion clearly meets this threshold. It is cruel, insofar as students’ hopes are raised and then thoroughly dashed in seeing events listed and then realizing they cannot attend. The behavior is also unusual to the degree it is odd — seriously, why do they list these events that students aren’t allowed to attend? Thus, I would either enjoin the administration from excluding students from attending faculty workshops or, conversely, prevent the publication of such events in the Docket.


Coleman, J., dissenting.

As a public institution, the University of Virginia’s exclusionary policies are subject to review under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[10] Since law students are not a protected class, we must employ rational basis review, meaning that the legislative means must be “rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose.”[11] Because excluding me from any event reeks of arbitrariness, I would hold that the “open to faculty” exclusion violates the Equal Protection Clause.

A “legitimate governmental purpose” exists in this case. The School wants to maintain order in their events, promote genuine scholarly discourse, and maintain an aura of exclusivity. These are all well and good.

But there is no rational relation between excluding law students like myself and achieving those goals. Students like me are wonderful, inquisitive, and respectful. Therefore, a blanket ban on all students is grossly overinclusive. Were the restriction limited to law students, then I would have no problem, since it is of course rational to exclude MBA students. In this case, if the means don’t fit, you must admit [law students].

I would hold that the Law School is forbidden from restricting any event to faculty only. Therefore, I disrespectfully dissent.


Sandu, J., concurring in the judgment.

While I agree with the Court’s final judgment, I would have not granted cert initially, as I believe plaintiffs lack standing. While I agree that such a case is undeniably petty, it appears that the overwhelming majority of students truly wishing to attend faculty-only events are 1Ls and/or Law Weekly editors who lack other ideas for articles.[12]

Among this Court’s foundational principles is the maxim that 1Ls always lose.[13] It therefore follows that this Court ought not go out of its way to confer a disproportionate benefit upon such 1Ls. As for the Law Weekly editors, this Court’s greatest commitment is to The Bit™, and I can find no outcome funnier than the Law Weekly being unable to meet its article quota because this very Court would not permit it.[14]

More fundamentally, however, plaintiffs lack any personal injury beyond the general harm suffered equally by all in the Law School community receiving emails with events they will never attend.[15] Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any imminent plans to attend such events and/or write articles about these events—a mere proposal to cover the event is like a nebulous plan to see elephants. And like those in Lujan whose passion for wildlife was insufficient to support their claim against the federal government, so too should these plaintiffs’ fleeting interest in attending faculty-only events be insufficient for this Court. ‘I don’t want to go, but I still want to be invited’ is simply not enough.


[1] Virginia v. Harvard Law Review Ass’n, 76 U.Va 6 (2023).

[2] See In re Pleats, 71 U.Va 21 (2019) (enjoining the “design, production, and marketing of pleated trousers” and ordering fashion designers to “burn any and all pleated pants in their possession”).

[3] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821B.

[4] Id.

[5] See e.g., UVA Gym-Goers v. UVA, 74 U.Va 13 (2022) (“Access to the gym is necessary for students to make use of the memberships, memberships which they have paid for in the form of tuition.”).

[6] Id.

[7] See Hungry People v. Law School Student Orgs, 75 U.Va 12 (2022) (enjoining student organizations from “preventing food from being served the instant it is available” at events).

[8] UVA Law, Law School Speech Policy.

[9] Id. (emphasis added).

[10] See United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 519 (1996).

[11] Hodel v. Indiana, 452 U.S. 314, 331 (1981).

[12]Additionally, no evidence was submitted to the Court on whether Faculty themselves actually wish to attend the events at issue in this case.

[13] Unless it would be funnier for them to win.

[14] See Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U.Va 16 (2023) (“There is nothing more vital to the exercise of justice than committing to the bit.”).

[15] Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).

Hot Bench: Amanda "Mandy" Marie Brock


Hi Mandy! It’s great to speak with you. This is now the third time that the Virginia Law Weeklyhas Hot Benched you, which I am pretty sure is a record! Since we have been getting to know you over the past few years, I thought we could start by catching up on some things you have spoken about in the past.

So we know you have a son and daughter—how have they been doing?

My son graduated high school recently and is now going to Piedmont Virginia Community College taking business classes. And my daughter just had a son last Thanksgiving, so I am a grandmother now!

 

Congratulations! That is so exciting to hear! I also know that you are a basketball fan, do you have a favorite team?

I don’t have a favorite team, but I do have a favorite player: Kevin Durant. He is just really good at what he does. I didn’t start watching until my son told me about him, but now I really like watching him play wherever he goes.

 

What about college basketball? Are you going to participate in March Madness?

I’m a fan of UVA! I do like March Madness, but I don’t do the brackets. My friends have asked me to do it in the past, but I haven’t done it. It really is madness! I think this year I might do a bracket, a lot of people ask me about it.

 

I’m glad I could talk you into it! I also know you love reading—have you read anything good lately?

No, unfortunately I haven’t been reading lately. I’ve been so busy with work because I have been working three jobs.

 

You do work at least as hard as anyone in this building, so I am sorry to hear that. What about this: if you were to write a book, what would it be about?

I really like mysteries and suspense—murder mysteries and things of that nature. I’d probably write something like that.

 

Okay, on to some new topics! Can you share something from your bucket list?

I just want to travel the world. I work so much, so it is difficult to travel a lot. I want to go to Dubai, but I also really want to go to Africa. I am going to Africa before 2025.

 

That means this year!

Yes I know, I’ve been trying for a long time and have been saving money. I have been talking with friends about it, too. We were supposed to go in 2022, but that just didn’t happen. So now we want to try to go before 2025.

 

Do you have any personal heroes?

My mother. That is the strongest woman that I know. She is the definition of a superwoman. She is currently seventy-two years old and works three jobs, and she doesn’t even have to. She gets up every day and keeps going, and that is where I get it from. She just makes things happen, and I love her for that. She is my superhero.

 

Do you have a favorite memory with her?

My mom used to take me and my oldest sister to this camp when we were kids. I can’t remember the name of it, but it was just this weekend thing. She would pack a picnic, and we would do all these fun activities. She made a lot of memories with us, and that has really stuck with me. We haven’t done that for a while, but now we have grandchildren! I think I should call my sister about it, and maybe we can start up again.

 

Do you have any hidden talents?

When I was younger I used to take things apart—like a computer or clock—and put them back together. It started because I was just bored one day, and I had a clock that I felt like taking apart and putting back together. It was an old school alarm clock with a lot of parts. The most challenging thing I ever worked on was probably an old school radio that my dad had. That one was harder but probably the most fun.

 

If you were serving dinner to guests, what would be your signature dish you’d serve?

My kids love my pork chops. I cook some mean pork chops.

 

What is the trick to these mean pork chops?

I’d just tell my guests “they were made with love and cooked to perfection.” You got me wanting one right now. Golden brown and juicy, so delicious. Yeah you’ve got me thinking about them now.

 

It’s time for our lightning round! Go-to karaoke song?

“Girl On Fire” by Alicia Keys. But I’ll only sing by myself.

 

Guilty pleasures?

Chocolate.

 

Favorite coffee drink for yourself?

I don’t like coffee.

 

Really? For as many times as you have been interviewed for the Virginia Law Weekly, I don’t know if you’ve ever been asked that question before. What about your favorite drink to make?

Caramel Vanilla Latte. I love making lattes, and I do make a lot of them. The work has slowed down over the years. We used to be so busy, but people have been buying less coffee lately.

 

I will issue a PSA to our readership: Buy more coffee! I know you all need it.

What is your favorite drink?

 

My favorite drink? I like cortados. They are espressos with just a little bit of steamed milk. Kind of like a small cappuccino.

I used to make something like that. There used to be a student from Italy who asked for espresso with just a dab of steamed milk. That must be what they were. I just learned something new!

 

Who would you want to star in a movie about your life?

Angela Bassett. Great actress. I love her.

 

I sense an Oscar coming for that role.

I can see it too!

 

Mountain or beach vacation?

Definitely beach. I don’t like cold. At all.

 

If you could bring one television show back, what would it be?

This one is tough. I think I’d go with The Wonder Years. That was my favorite show as a kid.


---
Interviewed by Noah Coco' ‘26

Counsel's Counsel: Feb 7, 2024


Counsel’s Counsel is the world’s preeminent advice column for law students. Written by recent UVA Law graduate, Jane Doe, J.D.

Question:

Dear Jane: After weeks of checking SIS five times per day over Winter Break, I logged in on January 14 and saw my grades from my first semester of law school had finally been posted. I honestly didn’t know what to expect. I felt pretty good about my performance on my exams and thought there was a good chance that I beat the curve in at least one of my classes. I had also checked the grade data spreadsheet floating around the law school and knew some of my professors had wide curves. I anxiously clicked the “Academics” tab to find that I had, in fact, beat the curve. In fact, I beat the curve in all but one of my 1L fall doctrinal classes (Torts).

As thrilled as I am to have gotten so many A minuses, I am now feeling intense pressure. I know my performance can’t slip this semester if I want to get on VLR, be offered a job at a V10 firm during OGI, and interview for a federal appellate clerkship.

I want to tell my friends about how I’m doing, but I know we aren’t technically supposed to share our grades. I tried to let on how I did by telling them how much I loved all of my professors from last semester, except for my Torts professor. I even told them that I think he is a reverse sexist who only gives As to women. Do you think they got the hint?

Last week, I decided to set up a meeting with my Peer Advisor to talk about how I’m feeling. My PA suggested we meet in ScoCo during lunch. It was crowded that day, so I’m sure other people overheard me tell my PA what my grades are and about the intense pressure I’ve been feeling. The meeting ended up being a total waste of time. My PA didn’t have any good advice for me. I wouldn’t have set up the meeting if I had known this PA got straight B pluses in all of their 1L classes. Do you have any advice for me, Jane?

- Beat the Curve.

Answer:

Curve: The best way to make sure your classmates know you were successful last semester is by raising your hand and participating in class early and often. You’ll really be showing off if you start off your question by telling your new professor how much you already know about the subject matter. Your 2L and 3L classmates in your electives will especially appreciate and respect you for showing how much you know about the law. I can guarantee that nobody will be rolling their eyes at you or texting about you during class. 

If that isn’t enough for your friends to see you beat the curve, they probably did get the hint that your worst grade was in Torts. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that someone only complains about a professor when they aren’t happy with their grade. It really is remarkable how a good grade can turn someone who spent all semester complaining about a class or professor into their biggest defender. I’m sure your female friends in your section really appreciate hearing that the only reason they beat the curve in Torts is because they are women. It certainly couldn’t be that they studied hard or wrote a better exam answer than you.

Finally, let's talk about pressure. You may think you have it bad and are under intense pressure. It’s true that you’ll need to continue to get good grades to meet your lofty goals. But consider your classmates who didn’t beat the curve. While you are out announcing your grades in ScoCo, they are having weekly academic support meetings with Dean Davies. Don’t you think they might have it a bit worse than you?

Here’s my last piece of advice for you: If you want to have a private conversation, you may want to stay out of ScoCo during the lunch hour. Otherwise, your next “private” chat with your PA could end up the topic of a Bar Czar email or a Reddit post. Everyone knows ScoCo is the place to see and be seen, not the place for hushed conversations and sharing personal information.

 - Jane Doe, J.D.

 

For a serious response to your serious inquiries, please access the anonymous submission form using the QR code below.

Court of Petty Appeals: Andrew Allard '25 v. Editorial Board of the Virginia Law Weekly


Andrew Allard '25
v.
Editorial Board of the
Virginia Law Weekly

76 U.Va 12 (2023)


Allard, J., delivers the opinion of the court.

Summary of Facts

Justice Garrett Coleman ’25 and Justice Andrew Allard ’25 are, ostensibly, writers for the Virginia Law Weekly. On January 15, 2024, the Student Bar Association sent out an email informing students that one Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. would be speaking at the Law School in the first week of the spring semester. Given Mr. Kennedy’s reputation as a wise and eloquent speaker, Coleman and Allard recognized the likelihood that the event would be a breaking story in the Law Weekly’s first issue of the semester. Both reporters submitted RSVPs to attend the event with the intent to cover it. The record does not reveal who submitted their RSVP first, but both parties have maintained that it was “totally me.”

Shortly before the first Law Weekly meeting of the semester, Coleman, in an act familiar to anyone with siblings, invoked dibs on the RFK story in a text message to the Law Weekly Editorial Board, noting that “The gods made this event for the Law Weekly.” “Dammit,” Allard replied. This action to quiet title followed.

 

I

A. The Court of Petty Appeals may properly exercise original jurisdiction in this case.

In addition to its well-recognized jurisdiction over all petty matters related to the Law School,[1]  the Court of Petty Appeals also possesses and regularly exercises original jurisdiction over all petty disputes between editors of the Law Weekly and cases raising Law Weekly constitutional questions.[2] Because an editor of the Law Weekly has sued the Editorial Board, we are obliged to hear this case, however desperate and frivolous it may be.

 

B. The issue of ripeness is irrelevant to the present case and perhaps all cases in the Court of Petty Appeals.

Justice Sandu raises the possibility that this case should be dismissed on ripeness grounds because Coleman’s article has not yet been published. We will not address this argument because it is irrelevant. As has been REPEATEDLY PROVEN by SCIENCE, time is not real.[3] We are thus no less justified in intervening “now,” if there even is such a thing.

II

A. The Law Weekly Editorial Board must recognize an editor’s bona fide claim for dibs.

Allard seeks declaratory and injunctive relief nullifying Coleman’s dibs claim, declaring Allard’s superior title to the RFK event, and preventing Coleman from publishing his “really poorly written and frankly offensive” article about the same. Allard argues in his complaint that the Law Weekly Constitution contains no “dibs” clause, and thus no right to dibs can be claimed by editors or enforced by the Editorial Board. Coleman responds that the Law Weekly constitution protects an editor's right to call dibs on any story that may appear in a future issue. Coleman does not contest that dibs are absent from the text of the Law Weekly constitution but argues that substantive honor protects a right to dibs. We agree.

This Court has recognized that “[o]ur constitutional order was fundamentally changed when the Honor System was established in 1842.”[4] Somehow, this means that the Court can discover rights implied by historical vibes “as if they were explicitly granted rights.”[5] Under this predictable and principled formula, we find that the Law Weekly constitution protects dibs. Respect for the exclusive rights of dibors dates back to the late 17th century. By 1915, it had developed into a customary right in the United States.[6] It is today recognized by all civilized nations as essential to ordered liberty. To fail to recognize the rights of the dibor would plunge the Law Weekly into a Rousseauvian post-property dystopia. We decline to take that path.

 

B. An editor who calls dibs on a story may assert exclusive rights to the same if he gives reasonable notice of his claim.

Allard next argues that, even if the Law Weekly constitution recognizes a right to call dibs, dibs can only be called in-person during the Law Weekly’s meeting to assign articles. We find Allard’s arguments unavailing. Instead, we are persuaded by Coleman that dibs are effective upon a showing of reasonable notice.

Because the right to call dibs attaches to all abandoned and unclaimed property, a claim for dibs is analogous to ownership by first possession. This Court will uphold a dibs claim to the extent that other potentially interested parties had notice of the dibs. Here, it is undisputed that the dibor provided such notice. The Editorial Board, whose members are responsible for the assignment of articles, was notified of Coleman’s dibs claim to the story. That alone is sufficient.

 

C. Allard’s adverse possession claim to the RFK story is meritless, and it really suggests that he should retake Property.

Allard lastly argues that, even conceding that Coleman has some dibs right to the RFK story, Allard has superior title arising from his adverse possession of the story. Allard avers that he “camp[ed] outside of Caplin Auditorium for twenty-four hours in advance of the event” and argues that this was sufficient to extinguish Coleman’s rights as dibor.

We reject Allard’s argument because it makes zero sense. First of all, how do you adversely possess a story? There is no exclusive physical space that can be occupied to initiate a claim for adverse possession, save for the as yet nonexistent pages in which the article will eventually be published. Second, even if one could adversely possess a story, Allard has not identified a single case recognizing twenty-four hours as a period sufficient to claim adverse possession.[7]

While there may be circumstances in which a claim for dibs can be extinguished, for example due to the dibor’s failure to timely assert his rights, we decline to specify such circumstances here because the plaintiff has so utterly failed to make a case for doing so. Accordingly, defendant Coleman’s motion to dismiss is granted.


Coleman, J., concurring in the judgment.

As this Court is without a formal code of ethics, I of course rule in favor of myself. But Judge Allard, while noble in his commitment to neutrality, erred in reasoning against himself as a litigant. This case does not fall under my esteemed substantive honor analysis. Rather, the answer is found in ancient principles of property law, most notably the public trust doctrine.

It is well established that certain natural resources are owned by the sovereign “for the common use of all the people.” Matthews v. Bay Head Improv. Assoc., 95 N.J. 306, 316 (N.J. 1984). The same is true of news stories. Our sovereign, Chief Justice of this Court and Editor-in-Chief of our paper, lays original claim to all news, future and past. But he or she must preserve those stories for common and beneficial use by the writers of this paper.

In this case, RFK Jr. is “the air, running water, [and] sea.” Id. In his capacity as sovereign, Chief Justice Morse chose to respect my dibs over the story, as having a single author is necessary for its beneficial use. Equally within his sovereign capacity, Chief Justice Morse could have disregarded my claim as dibor. This “news-in-trust doctrine” should help to resolve future disputes because it holds that the Editor-in-Chief wields near total control over the disposition of news stories.


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

I write a separate opinion to address my view on the issues of ripeness and mootness, in light of the fact that we mere mortals are bound by the limitations of linear time, regardless of if, as my colleagues appear to hold, “time is not real.”

With regards to ripeness, at the time the purported “dibs” were called, the event in question, although scheduled, had not yet taken place. Nothing would have precluded both parties from attending the talk and both writing articles, after which there could be a fair comparison between the two pieces, with the Court ultimately deciding which one to print. At the time the dibs fight occurred, therefore, the issue was not yet ripe for adjudication, as it “rest[ed] upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.”[8]

Furthermore, with regards to mootness, the case is no longer in controversy because we have already printed the article in question, only one page prior to the issuing of this opinion. No remedy funnier than this could possibly be granted by this Court.


[1] See Virginia v. Harvard Law Review Ass’n, 76 U.Va 6 (2023).

[2] See Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake (Lake, C.J., concurring) (“There is certainly precedent for belligerent and underappreciated Justices suing the Chief Justice . . . .”).

[3] See generally the years 2020 through 2022.

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

[5] See id. (recognizing law students’ fundamental rights to inebriation and socialization).

[6] See Dibs, Online Etymology Dictionary (Aug. 15, 2018).

[7] Even Allard’s claim that he camped out of for even twenty-four hours is dubious, given testimony that he was seen being chased away from the auditorium by security early in the morning of the event.

[8] Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300  (1998) (internal quotations omitted).

Hot Bench: Dean Leslie Kendrick '06


What’s your favorite thing about UVA Law?  

Hands down, the people. 

 

What were you like as a law student?

I was nervous my first semester, thinking, “Am I even doing this right?” and then I remember having a great time. I studied, got involved with student orgs, and hung out with Micah and my friends. Pretty typical UVA Law—very substantive and very fun. 

 

I remember you studied English at Oxford—what are three non-legal books you’d recommend to law students?

People treat classics with a reverence that implies they must be unenjoyable, but don’t be fooled. Give one of these a try: Moby Dick—My favorite novel. Workplace drama, complete with crazed boss and cantankerous employees, that happens to be on a ship. Middlemarch—It is about how people become who they are. Instead of a last book, catch a play at the Blackfriars Playhouse in Staunton. It is the world’s only replica of Shakespeare’s indoor theater.

 

What was your favorite class while a law student, and what was your favorite class to teach?

I loved all my classes, but Tort Theory changed my life. It was taught by Ken Abraham and Vince Blasi. Students included Professors Schwartzman and Barzun, and Judge Dan Bress, among other superstars. I can’t choose one class that is my favorite to teach; they are all my favorites.

 

What are you most excited about in your new role as Dean?

I love this place, so the thought of helping steward it into the future is what makes me the happiest.

 

Favorite spot in Charlottesville?

I like to be outside where I can see water or hills. Charlottesville and Virginia are good for that. In terms of everyday places, I like to be at the city parks and pools with my kids, who are all on the city swim team (Go Swordfish).

 

Favorite food and favorite dessert (they of course can be the same!)?

Too many to count, but here are some grab-and-go Cville favorites:

•   The Birdwood sandwich at Bellair Market

•   Spicy Senegalese peanut tofu soup at Revolutionary Soup

•   Chicken cheddar fig sandwich at Feast

•   Currant scones, challah, and princess cake at Albemarle Baking Company

 

Do you have any pets? If so, what animals are they/what are their names?

My daughter just got a hamster. While she’s working on a name, we are calling him Little Dude.

 

Trivia category you’d be surprisingly good at?

Popular Music, c. 1955-2005.

 

Anything you’d like UVA Law students to know about you that they likely don’t already know? 

These answers notwithstanding, I generally don’t talk about myself much! I’d rather focus on you and the professionals you are becoming. This institution is special because of the effort you make to treat each other humanely, even in stressful times. Thank you for that. It’s one of the reasons I would rather be here than anyplace else in the world.


---
Interviewed by Noah Coco '26

Court of Petty Appeals: Estate of Big Gobble the Turkey v. Commonwealth of Virginia


Estate of Big Gobble the Turkey
v.
Commonwealth of Virginia

76 U.Va 11 (2023)


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

The deceased bird in question (herein referred to by his nickname, “Big Gobble”) appealed to this Court for a stay of execution on Eighth Amendment grounds. Unfortunately, while this Court was on Thanksgiving recess, Big Gobble was killed, packaged, basted, stuffed, put in an oven, and consumed. Still, this Court will hear the case as a § 1983 claim to determine if Big Gobble’s estate is entitled to damages. We dismiss that claim and clarify our reasoning for future turkey requests.

Before the official ceremony at the White House, Big Gobble was one of the finalists for the turkey pardon. He was paraded through the West Wing, but was met with little praise. Chief of Staff Ron Klain Xed (formerly known as “tweeted”), “This is the ugliest bird I’ve ever seen.” Attorney General Merrick Garland said, “Any jury in the country would mark this bird for death.” And, upon laying eyes on Big Gobble, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. began telling a story about how much better the birds looked when he was a child in Scranton. Needless to say, there was no presidential pardon for Big Gobble.

Big Gobble’s estate first argues that death is a cruel and unusual punishment for the simple crime of being a turkey in November. Second, they contend that the method of execution is “deliberately designed to inflict pain.”[1] And third, they make the novel argument that this punishment is unusual because the cooked turkey tastes so bad. While we agree that turkey tastes awful, we find that this execution does not offend the Eighth Amendment.

The law is no stranger to mistreating animals. See Pierson v. Post (“[The] fox is a ‘wild and noxious beast’ . . . His depredations on farmers and on barnyards, have not been forgotten; and to put him to death wherever found, is allowed to be meritorious, and of public benefit.”)[2] Just like the fox, the turkey is a “noxious beast.” He roams our lands, plucking at shrubbery to support his unnaturally large abdomen, and blocking roads to imperil drivers. Unlike the peaceful duck, he offers no beauty or friendliness. And the turkey cannot even instill a sense of hope or wonder by flying above us. Based on this long tradition of mistreating animals, this Court will not find an exception for turkeys within the Eighth Amendment. It was “meritorious” for a family to feast on Big Gobble over Thanksgiving.

This case can also be decided on my increasingly popular method of substantive honor analysis. See Students for Fair Socialization v. Student Bar Association (“Our constitutional order was fundamentally changed when the Honor System was established in 1842. And with that, the Framers protected some inalienable rights by putting them outside of the Honor Code’s ambit.”).[3] In 1842, there was no clemency for turkeys. Their rights were not recognized beyond what was necessary to service our needs for dry, tasteless protein. Therefore, the Eighth Amendment cannot provide any safe haven for turkeys, regardless of our modern sensibilities.

While there is some merit to the claim that this punishment deliberately inflicts pain, that is true of all our modern eating habits. Were this Court to find for Big Gobble on that point, our lower courts would be inundated with ducks not wanting to be forcibly fed so that we can eat their diseased livers, cows not wanting to be separated from their young so that we can enjoy our seasonal Chick-Fil-A milkshakes, and pigs not wanting to be carved up in thousands of ways to satisfy our hunger. We are not prepared to let courts become another regulatory agency on food processing.

The best argument that Big Gobble’s estate puts forward is that the punishment is unusual because it forces Americans to eat a mediocre entree on such a nice holiday. Still, given how noxious the turkey is, the infinitesimal joy that I experience from having some turkey within my stuffing and mashed potato mix is enough to justify the punishment.

Since there was no constitutional violation, the § 1983 claim is dismissed. Though a scheduling conflict prevented us from doing anything before Big Gobble’s execution, we confirm that the result would have been the same had we heard this appeal in a timely fashion. Turkeys will find no sanctuary in this Court.


Rice, J., concurring.

I concur in the judgment that the § 1983 claim was properly dismissed but write separately to clarify that I would limit the scope of today’s decision to that of factory-farmed, domesticated turkeys only. Whereas these turkeys are kept in small cages and fed to a point where they cannot walk nor reproduce[4], I cannot agree with the estate’s argument that putting these birds to death is cruel. Further, I do not find the taste of turkey too unusual.

Still, today’s decision goes too far in that it applies broadly to all turkeys, including the wild ones from which I would be more inclined to hear an Eighth Amendment claim against those who hunt them for sport.


Allard, J., concurring in the judgment.

While I would also dismiss Big Gobble’s claim, the majority’s reasoning in this case is a stark departure from the principles that ought to guide this Court. Today, by bald judicial fiat, the majority declares that the Eighth Amendment offers no protection for the humble turkey. I write separately to express my strong disapproval of this conclusion and to underscore the importance of preserving the sanctity of our traditions, even those involving our feathered friends.

The Constitution vests in the President the “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States.” This power is absolute and unreviewable, a check on the potentially arbitrary or unjust application of the law. That power has, in recent decades, been extended to the Thanksgiving turkey, as a symbolic gesture of goodwill to turkeys and other fowl throughout the nation.

No pardon was issued in the case before us today. But that does not absolve the Court of its duty to afford the full protections of our Constitution to all litigants, including the humble turkey. The denial of Big Gobble’s Eighth Amendment rights sets a dangerous precedent, declaring that the Courts have no role to play in maintaining the uneasy truce between man and bird. The majority, apparently perceiving this case as trivial or lighthearted, asks the country to simply bear the risks of its disruption to the delicate balance of nature.

But most of all, the majority's decision raises serious methodological concerns in its mischaracterization of the Thanksgiving meal. Innumerable recipes are available that produce a moist and flavorful turkey. Why else would millions of Americans flock to the Thanksgiving table each year, often even for seconds? It is regrettable that the majority did not enjoy a well-prepared turkey this year. But its culinary failings cannot extinguish the constitutional rights of American bird-citizens.

Even if it were true that turkey is invariably dry, it is not the role of this Court to question the wisdom of American traditions. Such inquiries threaten to erode trust in our country’s democratic foundations and undermine the delicate balance established by the framers. We must resist the temptation to treat the turkey’s pardon as a mere holiday spectacle, for in doing so, we risk devaluing the turkeys that so generously give their lives for our consumption.

In conclusion, it is evident from the majority’s disdain for Big Gobble and other turkeys alike that their decision was motivated by bird-based animus. Rather than insult the decedent in this case, I would have recognized that bird common law does not permit § 1983 claims by turkeys to be filed during the month of November. I fear that the majority’s cavalier attitude toward the turkey in this case may extend beyond Eighth Amendment claims to cast a shadow on the sanctity of turkey clemency itself. To turkeys and turkey enjoyers alike, know that you have at least one friend on this Court.


Allen, J. dissenting.

It is always painful to dissent, as disagreeing with such learned colleagues is an unenviable position to find oneself. It also forces me to actually write an opinion, which is much more work than simply signing my name onto an opinion written by one of (the clerks of) my peers. Even so, none of this pain compares with the damage inflicted on the nation by the Court today — continuing reliance on turkeys as the centerpiece of a holiday meal.

Turkey is a truly mediocre meat, offering little in the way of flavor or satisfaction, and yet the public is forced to pretend to enjoy it every year. While fine when ground and seasoned, or even on a typical sandwich found in a quotidian lunchbox, a full bird is only good insofar as it is impressive to look at and certainly falls short of the reward one deserves on a national holiday. Ham is truly the better dish to be served, but chicken also presents an acceptable alternative if one wants to preserve a semblance of the pomp and circumstance surrounding the turkey’s presentation.

All this is to say that turkeys should not be killed for our Thanksgiving meals — not out of any charitable impulse to the bird, but as a public service to society. Because the Court today both blesses the use of turkey and reinforces a system which will only continue to breed and slaughter them for consumption in perpetuity, I cannot sign on. In the face of inaction by this Court, I can only appeal to the good graces and common sense of my fellow Americans to seek better alternatives than turkey when planning your next holiday.


---
jxu6ad@virginia.edu


[1] Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 94 (2008).

[2] 3 Cai. R. 175, 180 (N.Y. 1805) (Livingston, J. dissenting).

[3] 76 U.Va. 2 (2023).

[4] Turkeys: Torture on the Holiday Table, PETA, https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/animals-used-food-factsheets/turkeys-factory-farmed-torture-holiday-table/.

Court of Petty Appeals: Denials of Certiorari


Not every petty dispute makes it into the halls of this esteemed Court. Here are some of the most recent entries in the loathed “denial pile.”


1Ls v. Legal Research & Writing Professors, 23-CV-0064.

1L petitioners seek review of the lower court’s opinion denying their request for an injunction against the Law School’s LRW professors preventing them from assigning additional memos and other writing assignments. The petition for certiorari is denied. The Court finds no reason to disturb the trial court’s application of the principle that 1Ls must always lose.

Morse, C.J., concurring in the result. I agree with the Court’s decision to deny this petition for certiorari but write separately to urge an alternate grounds for denial. Insofar as LRW fellows are also parties to this suit, and assuming (as any reasonable person would) that these LRW fellows are gunners, they must lose based on this Court’s rule of a more recent vintage: Gunners always lose.

Allard, J., dissenting. I would grant certiorari in this case, as I am hoping and praying that petitioners have a plausible legal argument that will save me from my work as a Writing Fellow. I can’t believe the 1Ls are my only hope, but here we are.


Gunners v. The Rest of Us, 23-CV-0124.

A collection of Law School gunners seek an injunction against being described as gunners, alleging that there is a negative connotation to the term and requesting this Court require the Law School community describe them as “dart-throwers,” “boomerangers,” or “spitballers.” Cert is denied because there is, as a matter of law, a negative connotation to being a gunner.

Allard, J., with whom Foss, J. joins, dissenting. I would grant certiorari in this case to give respondents the opportunity to suggest an even worse term for gunners.


Students of UVA Law v. Sidley Austin Café,  23-CV-0230.

The student body seeks a writ of mandamus against the Sidley Austin Café, requiring them to extend hours past 2:00 p.m. and stay open until at least 11:00 p.m. Petitioners allege that they cannot make it through the 3:40 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. window without a cup of coffee from Greenberry’s in tow. Cert is denied because Mandy is a queen and can do no wrong. Further, students in need of an afternoon boost can bring their own mug to MyLab for free coffee.


Students of the Night v. Dugas, 23-CV-0444. The Students of the Night allege that the Flex Exam rules unconstitutionally discriminate against the nocturnal. Cert is denied because law firms also require work during the day.

Foss, J., dissenting. I would grant certiorari in this case because law firms require work during all hours of every day. Students should be required to take at least one Flex Exam during the window of 2 a.m. to 4 a.m.


In re The Pavilion at North Grounds Renters, 23-CV-0784.

The tenants of the “Pav'' seek an injunction to prevent rate increases for the coming year, due to the numerous failing amenities and inability to supply basic utilities in the building. Cert is denied because the law does not accommodate the eggshell plaintiff, and any reasonable person would have expected this outcome after reading a single review of the property.


The Public Interest Law Association (PILA) v. People Who Snuck Alcohol into The Silent Auction, 23-CV-0154.

The Public Interest Law Association seeks compensatory and punitive damages from law students who, allegedly, snuck their own alcohol into the PILA silent auction on November 4, 2023. Cert is denied. PILA chose to charge law students, most of whom are jobless and swimming in student loans, $40 a ticket to attend an event that then charges $8 for a Bud Light. This court supports the fiscal responsibility displayed by putting Fireball shooters in your socks.

Brown, J., dissenting. Justice Foss rightly identifies the logic at play in this case, but reaches the wrong conclusion. PILA had every reason to expect that people would bring their own drinks to the Silent Auction. It is a tradition as old as the PILA Ball itself. For them to now seek relief against a problem entirely of their own design is unbelievably petty. What jurisdiction is this Court left with, if not over this, the most trivial of disputes? Accordingly, I would grant certiorari.


The People v. Restroom Stall Manufacturers Everywhere, 23-CV-0451.

A group of disgruntled restroom users, collectively “The People,” bring this action seeking to enjoin Restroom Stall Manufacturers Everywhere from placing the slit in a public bathroom stall door to line up perfectly with the toilet within the stall. Plaintiffs allege that the slit is not necessary to the structural integrity of the door, and alternatively if the slit is necessary, the slit does not need to be directly in front of the toilet where The People are then left exposed to those on the other side of the door to peer through, albeit, unintentionally. Cert is denied not because we disagree with this action, but because this court lacks proper jurisdiction over this matter, shitty as it may be.


In re Reykjanes Peninsula Volcano, 23-CV-0102.

A certain Features Editor was supposed to travel to Iceland last week until an incredibly pesky earthquake swarm broke out on the Reykjanes Peninsula in the country’s southwest. This prompted said anxious Features Editor to cancel his impulsive trip out of fears that a volcano would erupt, he’d get stuck on the island, and fail out of 2L. The volcano here seeks eruptive relief so that it can actually explode and make said Features Editor feel justified in canceling his trip. Cert is denied because it’s much funnier for Ethan to have missed his trip for no good reason at all.


Virginia Law Review and Virginia Journal of International Law v. Pool Hall Junkies, 23-CV-0253.

The student-run journal, the Virginia Law Review (VLR) and Virginia Journal of International Law (VJIL) seek an injunction against a class of self-described “pool sharks” who have refused to do any cite checks while continuing to use the pool tables in the journals’ combined office. We deny the journals’ petition for certiorari because Journals are almost entirely populated by gunners, and gunners always lose. Also, pool is tight.


UVA Law Students v. Dean Goluboff, 23-CV-2004.

The student body of the University of Virginia School of Law again seeks an injunction against Dean Risa Golubuff to prevent her from stepping down as Dean of the Law School. The students correctly note that Dean Golubough has presided over a period of stability, happiness, and growth in UVA Law’s prestige. While it is of course true that Dean Gabblehuff has done an excellent job and is widely-loved, we are eager to see what kind of shenanigans Dean Gobblebuff gets up to. We expect we could run across her in a high-stakes backroom card game in Tokyo, surfing big ones in Waimea Bay, apprenticing as a cobbler in Florence, or teaching Francis Ngannou how to improve his boxing game on a mountainside in the Himalayas. We eagerly await her next epic adventure. Any of which, we are sure, will be way more fun than responding to angsty law students’ emails about why their favorite snacks are not in the Snack Office. Also didn’t Petitioners already bring this case? And win? Cert is accordingly denied.


Blue Lot Permit Holders v. The Giant Sports Van That Takes Up Ten Spaces, 23-CV-1984.

The Blue Lot permit holders bring this suit against that Giant Van from Hoo Sports that takes up a frankly absurd number of parking spaces and leaves all students—especially 3Ls with only afternoon classes—fighting over the last crumbs of space like a high-stakes game of musical chairs. While this Court considered granting cert, we found the amicus brief from D3 permit holders persuasive in our denial. Their brief argues that you get what you pay for. There can be nothing more petty than paying over $300 extra to avoid walking up a single flight of stairs. Furthermore, the proper defendant for this suit is not the van itself, but rather UVA Parking Services, UVA Athletics, or both. Those are the proper decision making bodies. For these reasons, we must deny cert and request that parties refile their suit against the proper defendants. Go big or go home.

Counsel's Counsel: November 15, 2023


Counsel’s Counsel is the world’s preeminent advice column for law students. Written by recent UVA Law graduate, Jane Doe, J.D.

Question:

Dear Jane: I write to you in the midst of one of my most challenging days as a student here at UVA Law. No, I didn’t bomb a cold call. I didn’t get turned down for an appellate clerkship either. I’ve had many days where I’ve questioned whether I belong here. None of those days were as bad as this Monday is turning out to be. What could rival those feelings of disappointment, rejection, and imposter syndrome, you ask? The answer is hanger and my missing Roots bowl.

It all started first thing this morning. The SBA president sent an email regarding changes to the Roots delivery program. At first, I was excited to hear that the Roots delivery time was now at 12:00 p.m. instead of 1:00 p.m. I have class at 1:00 p.m., so I haven't been able to order my El Jefe bowl yet this semester. I figured I would celebrate the new delivery time by ordering a bowl for lunch (I also haven’t been to the grocery store in over three weeks).

I walked to ScoCo a few minutes before noon. I was getting hungry and couldn’t wait to dig into my bowl. A crowd started to gather near the delivery spot. Our bowls are nowhere to be found. Then, thirty minutes after the scheduled delivery time, one of my classmates posted in our class GroupMe, “They messed up so bowls aren’t coming until 1pm.” Both my hunger and my anger grow with each minute. I realize I won’t have lunch before my class starts. My stomach is starting to hurt.

I have a few questions. Can we impeach the SBA president for this? Should the CEO of Roots step down for this mistake? Can I show up to class a few minutes late to wait for my bowl? Can I eat my bowl during class?  

- Rooting for Myself.

 

Answer:

Rooting: What a horrible start to your week! While breakfast is the most important meal of the day, lunch is either the second or third most important. While I’m not Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., I hope my response will help you with Finding Your Roots.

First, instead of demanding the CEO of Roots resign from his position, you should exploit this mistake. You should absolutely ask for your money back for the late bowl. I would also suggest demanding discount codes for future bowls. I’ve heard that HOTSPOT40 gets you 40 percent off your order. Ask for 50 percent off bowls for the rest of your law school career.

Impeaching the SBA president may also solve this problem, and many others at this school for that matter. But it sounds like, for once, the SBA president is not to blame for the Roots debacle. A leader with better foresight would not have had a delivery time that conflicted with many classes in the first place. To his credit though, the president did respond to complaints from students and tried to make a change.

I don’t recommend showing up late to class to wait for your bowl. Arriving late to class with a Roots bowl is similar to coming to a morning class fifteen minutes late with a cup of Starbucks in hand. This is very troublesome behavior. While your classmates should be focusing on the law, they are instead judging you for being late. Professors really should just lock the classroom door to prevent anyone from coming in after class has started. Or they should at least glare at you. 

Finally, please don’t eat your Roots bowl during class. Or any food for that matter. This is inconsiderate to your classmates and the professor. There is nothing worse than hearing the crinkling of a Student Affairs snack wrapper or the pop of a soda can while you are trying to learn or teach. Have you ever seen someone answer a cold call with food in their mouth? Disgusting. Trust me, the kid next to you really doesn't want to smell your stinky lunch. (I suppose you should be able to eat in class if you have an accommodation, and we know Student Affairs hands those out like candy.)

If your El Jefe is ever late again, I would recommend grabbing a bite to eat from the Sidley Austin Café to hold you over during class. You can stick your late Roots bowl in one of the SBA fridges for later. I don’t think you have to worry about SBA cleaning out those fridges anytime soon.

 - Jane Doe, J.D.

 

For a serious response to your serious inquiries, please access the anonymous submission form using the QR code below.

Hot Bench: Professor Jason Johnston


Thank you for doing this! It will be fun. Let’s start with the questions from our readers. What's your least favorite state?

My least favorite state…I don't think I have a least favorite state.

 

Not Iowa? [Iowa was mentioned quite a few times in contracts class earlier in the week]. 

No, I know a lot of people in Iowa who are great people. I don't like that it’s covered with corn, but *shrugs.*

 

OK, that's fair. Do you have a favorite state then?

Oh, yeah. These days we really like Idaho and South Carolina.

 

Nice! Ok, next question. Do you have plans to start a podcast or a YouTube channel?

I wouldn't say plans. I am talking to people about a possible YouTube channel.

 

What’s the content? 

The content would vary. It would be law, economics, and beyond. For example, it might even include discussions of books, old books that are really relevant, though, to things happening now.

 

Like classics old or academics old?

Yeah. Academic, classic, old, I'm not sure. And that's why I'm talking with people trying to figure out if I could have a YouTube channel that had a really quite diverse set of topics. And if I did it, how would I put it together?

 

That'd be fun.

Yeah, maybe.

 

Ok next one. Which would decrease the value of a home the most: a termite infestation, a quintuple murder, or a ghost?

Um, I'm gonna say without having done a lot of research that the termite infestation would be devastating and it would—here's the difference between the termite infestation and everything else. The other two, not everybody would care either about a multiple murder having occurred at the house or reputed haunting. But if you have a termite infestation, you have to care about it because it can literally physically destroy the house. So that's gonna have a monster impact on market value.

 

That makes a good point. But one could argue that it would be easier to get rid of the termites than the ghosts. You know, because you have to find, like, a priest. You may have to, like, get one in from the Vatican if the local ones don't cut it.

Yeah. I personally don't know anything about how you get rid of ghosts.

 

That's fair. If you were not a law professor, what do you think you'd be doing for a career?

I would—I almost did this—I would probably be a partner at a law firm, and I might have been in and out of government.

 

Makes sense. Why did you decide not to?

That's a great question. Because I went back to finish my Ph.D. after having worked two summers in law firms. But after the second summer I went back and was just pretty much doing economics. I'd already graduated law school. And I said,“You know, if I've got a lot of ideas for interesting projects, and I like this, I'm gonna continue with this.” And I was able to pass my prelims and get a good dissertation committee and get a dissertation subject and topic that people thought was interesting, and I liked doing that kind of work. Even though you get paid a lot less money. There are other features of being an academic I like—mainly not that you work less hard, but you have more flexibility in your schedule. So that's kind of how I ended up being an academic, and I did do a clerkship before I got into academia. So, that was the trade off.

 

So what makes someone successful in life?

Oh, that's a great question. I think the most important thing is perseverance. And you have to also pursue what you really love, and it sometimes takes a while to figure out what you really like and what you really want to do. But then you have to have perseverance, grit, toughness, and maybe most important—this is related to all the others—resiliency. Because bad things happen. This is part of my Christian faith, but our life here is not supposed to be happy or fun. It is difficult and you have to have—whatever the source of your faith—you have to have faith that you can get through those difficult periods, and they're inevitable, and you have to bounce back and keep, keep pursuing. I'll say this, keep pursuing your dreams. I look at law school classmates who have succeeded on their own terms—they all have those characteristics. And the students I've taught over the years who've really been successful—again on their terms, not necessarily somebody else in the world's terms—they all have those characteristics, and they have got a dream, they have a goal. And they have that kind of resiliency and faith that has allowed them to endure some really difficult times and get through them.

 

That's a good answer. I like that. It's also—the Christianity thing—it reminds of me C.S. Lewis’ Surprised by Joy. I think he talks about resiliency. 

I'm a big C.S. Lewis fan, yeah, definitely an influence.

 

I see it, that's cool. I'm a big fan as well. Ok, this will be an easy one. Do you believe in ghosts?

Not really.

 

That's less, like, equivocating than I expe—

That means no.

 

Ah, there it is. Which day do you think the start of the week is, Sunday or Monday? 

Sunday.

 

Really? Why?

Because that's when it starts.

 

Ok. What's your zodiac sign?

I don't know. Oh, wait, I know! Taurus. That's one of the ones that looks like an animal. I’m not a fan—I'm not really an astrology person at all. Not at all.

 

Shocking.  

But I do know I'm a Taurus.

 

Yeah, I learned recently that's not enough anymore. You have to know, like, exactly what time you were born and then there's like a whole placement and then your sun and your moon—it’s actually a very elaborate thing.

I do not doubt it. During the latter days of Ronald Reagan's presidency when he was incapacitated by Alzheimer's, his wife was helping to run the country and she made many decisions based on what, um, the astrologer told her.

 

Wow, something to make me dislike the Reagan’s even more. Or less? I don’t know.

I don't think that was a good thing.

 

Oh by the way, did you hear about the drink specials I ran at my bar for our Contracts mixer?

Oh yes! UCC 2-207. Very clever. The Johnston or whatever it's called?

 

Yeah, PBR and a shot of Old Crow.

I’ll tell you the real Johnston Special. If you want to do the basic Johnston, it would be PBR and Johnnie Walker Black.

 

Nice, Johnnie Walker was a teetotaller.

Really?

 

Yeah, teetotaller with a very successful liquor business, which is funny. Ok, so you mentioned Everything Everywhere, All At Once in class.

Great movie.

 

Do you have a favorite movie?

I don't like that many movies, but I do like Braveheart and The Patriot.

 

Have you seen Highlander?

I haven't seen a Highlander.

 

Oh, it's like one of the best worst movies of all time! It's got Christopher Lambert playing an immortal Scottish Swordsman, and then Sean Connery—

Is it a sci-fi-ish sort of thing?

 

Maybe? In the sense that he's, like, immortal, I guess. But that's it. Sean Connery is an Egyptian and also a Spaniard and is speaking with a FULL Scottish accent for the whole movie without even trying to cover it.  

Oh no.

 

Oh yes. And meanwhile, Christopher Lambert is French trying to do a Scottish accent, and frankly, he always sounds like he doesn’t speak a human dialect. He's got a really weird voice.

So it’s sort of an action movie?

 

It’s a great movie. It's one of my favorites.

I have to watch it.

 

Near the end now! What is a question that I should have asked that you would like to answer?

No, no, no. All good questions. All fun questions.

 

Cool, cool, cool. Hey, thanks for taking the time to do this!

Thank you!


---
Interviewed by Nicky Demitry, ’26

Court of Petty Appeals: Students of UVA Law v. God 76 U.Va 9 (2023)


Students of UVA Law
v.
God

76 U.Va 9 (2023)


Flanagan, J., delivers the opinion of the court.

I. Background

In a massive class action suit, the not-even-barred-students of UVA Law have decided they are, somehow, well-equipped to hold God Almighty[1] to account. The group asks for damages to the tune of $5 billion, due to damages and emotional injury arising from the recent rapid fluctuations in the weather. They also request injunctive relief, in the form of more consistent, and preferably temperate, weather.

The spookiest part of this October in Charlottesville may have been the climate. Over the course of a single day, the temperature would range from 40 to 80 degrees Fahrenheit. Students found themselves sweating while pumpkin picking one day, and nursing numbing fingers on their trek to find a parking spot the next. Dressing appropriately has become practically impossible.[2]

Compensatory damages were calculated by estimating the cost of providing each law student a lightweight but effective Canada Goose coat, private car services to-and-from the Law School, Kroger, and Bar Review, tinted moisturizer with SPF in it, and weekly spray tans, because they still haven’t been able to put their shorts in storage. Damages for emotional distress arise from far-ranging, and well-briefed, responses: Students have alleged fear that the planet will be uninhabitable for their children, concern for the fiscal wellbeing of the gas and oil companies for which they plan to work once climate change is taken more seriously, embarrassment from walking the hallways of WB carrying a parka on a day that ended up being 80 degrees, boredom from the constant small talk about the day’s weather, and distress from being forced to continue to see their classmates who choose to wear sandals to school’s toes late into October.

And who do the Students blame for this inconvenience? They point their fingers at the Creator, citing Psalm 148:8, Psalm 42:7, and Job 37:13 as clear evidence that He has explicitly claimed responsibility for the weather. God does not deny His ability to use storms as an instrument of righteous wrath when appropriate (and we agree with Him that it surely has, indeed, been appropriate here in the Law School). Rather, He argues that the Students are unreasonably rigid and should learn to “live a little.” This Court, you may be shocked to hear, is going to just go ahead and side with God.

 

II. Jurisdiction

We find that the lower court appropriately dismissed God’s argument that He is properly understood as a foreign defendant and is outside the reach of our jurisdiction. Regardless of His permanent residence in the Heavens, our jurisdiction extends over foreign defendants where the effects of extraterritorial behavior harm citizens within the U.S.[3]

The Court is also compelled by Appellees’ briefing regarding God’s own stated omnipresence. Students cite Jeremiah 23:23-24, where God has said, “Am I only a God nearby, and not a god far away? Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them? Do not I fill heaven and earth?” While UVA Law School is surely no Heaven, we hesitate to declare it the only godless place on Earth.

 

III. Analysis

The substantive question in this case is one of whether some unreliable temperatures are a real, cognizable injury.

God’s most compelling theory is that the “overly sensitive and, frankly, dramatic” Students of the Law School will “look for any opportunity to complain.” He has presented a compelling list of what seem to be, perhaps, outsized reactions: the Law Students “anticipate salaries more than four times the national median, yet complain about a lack of sufficient free food”; “rend their garments in despair each finals season, despite having had nearly three months with nothing to do but read their silly little books”; “bemoan hangovers each Saturday morning that are the obvious outgrowth of having consumed nothing the day prior but five vodka sodas and half a Roots bowl”; “cry over cite checks after they cried for weeks about the mere idea of not getting on Law Review,” and, perhaps most atrociously, “complain about the quality of the free Nobu they received for lunch as summer associates.”

God goes further, to highlight the manifold gifts that this season’s weather has bestowed upon the students. His arguments fall in three main buckets: (1) it is rare that you can frolic in the fall leaves without feeling chilly; (2) many law students prefer to wear summer-y or winter-y clothes, and extending this weird liminal phase appeases both parties; and (3) extending the summer a bit makes everyone act, to use His words, “a little bit more frisky and fun.” He presents photo evidence of Students dressed in cute sundresses and polo shirts, posing in front of matching autumnal leaves with captions like “fall-ing for Charlottesville all over again” and “I can’t be-leaf Law School could be so fun!” Indeed, He argues, the more appropriate Plaintiffs might be the professors of the Law School, who must have noticed that hot weather and cold calls don’t mix well.

 For these reasons, the Court finds the students’ argument implausible, and encourages them to give thanks in all circumstances. We find for God, thank Him for His well-pleaded brief, and request that He make His face shine on this Court and be gracious to us.


Allen, J., concurring.

I join the opinion of my learned colleague in full. I write only to address, and dismiss, another challenge advanced to the jurisdiction of this Court. Appellant asserts that, as the ultimate judge of all creation,[4] He cannot in turn be subject to the judgment of a lesser court such as this tribunal. On His view, those seeking recourse, such as Appellee, must address their prayer for relief to Him rather than the legal system. Putting aside the novelty of Appellant’s theory and its implications on both our body of precedent and the legitimacy of the courts as a whole, the argument is unavailing because Appellant has failed to consider a force even more powerful than religion—the common law. Nemo iudex in causa sua,[5] the prescription that “no man shall be a judge in his own cause,”[6] is a bedrock principle of our legal order. To allow a party to defeat a claim against them by invocation of their position as judge flies in the face of all precedent and logic underlying our constitutional system, and accordingly must be rejected. The jurisdiction of this Court extends to all petty disputes, and challenges to its competency require an extraordinary showing. Many parties before us believe themselves to be gods (generally gunners or 1Ls)—the fact that the Appellant is God in no way allows Him to escape the reach of this Court’s authority.


---
cf3tf@virginia.edu
guj9fn@virginia.edu


[1] While this Court will use He/Him pronouns to describe the God Almighty, following the choice made by His pro bono counsel, the Federalist Society, we acknowledge the controversy surrounding the gender identification of the Almighty Creator and take notice of the (scarcely relevant but absolutely splendidly done) amicus brief filed by Ms. Grande.

[2] However, dressing appropriately is not necessarily a new issue in this jurisdiction, regardless of the weather.

[3] See also 1Ls v. God, 73 U.Va. 16 (2021) (holding that 1Ls may sue God for an injunction but still must always lose).

[4] See, e.g., James 4:12.

[5] Presented in Latin for convenience of the Appellant.

[6] Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 197 (1974) (quoting Bonham’s Case 8 Co. 114a, 118a, 77 Eng.Rep. 646, 652 (1610)).

Hot Bench: Jackson Khandelwal '26


Jackson Khandelwal '26

Hi, Jackson! Thanks for joining me for this week’s Hot Bench. To get started, where are you from, where did you go for undergrad, and what were you up to before coming to law school?

Hey Nicky.  I’m from Columbus, Ohio, and I went to Ohio State University. I graduated last year, but before I came to school here, I was spending my time in and out of the Amazon Rainforest. 

 

Ok yes, I remember this! It was actually the first thing I think I learned about you when I met you in the Community Fellows program. It’s a very unique experience, so how did you end up there? 

The first time I got to go to the Amazon, I got invited to go along with my friend's family as part of an ecotourism trip, and it was there that I made friends with some members of a Sapara community who invited me back the next year to stay with them over the summer. And after that I just kept going back. 

 

That’s very cool. What made you want to keep going back?

I fell in love with the way of life and the knowledge the community had about us as humans but also the natural world around us. I was inspired by their struggle to protect their territory and preserve their culture, and I wanted to keep going back to understand more and to keep spending time with the people who had become my really close friends. 

 

Honestly, I could just spend this whole interview geeking about the rainforest and asking more questions about everything, but I’m going to resist the urge and limit myself. Do you think that you’ll end up in a field of law based on your time in the Amazon? Ecuador, I think, right?

Yeah, I really hope so. I would love to work with Native and Indigenous communities who are fighting for their collective rights and protecting their territories and the biodiversity within them. So I’m really interested in working at the intersection of human rights and environmental law. 

 

That’s very cool. I know we’re both trying to finish this major memo so I’ll move on to the lightning round so we can both get back to our suffering. 

Sounds good!

 

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

I’d probably be living in the jungle with my friends.

 

Honestly valid. What brought you to UVA? 

I love the mountains and I thought UVA looked like it built a really nice environment to go to school in. 

 

Favorite song right now? 

I’ve been listening to the song “Masters of War” by Bob Dylan lately, but I also love a song called “Lejos de la Ciudad” by Muerdo.

 

A song called “Masters of War” seems apropos for this time in the semester. Last Q! If you’re having a very bad day, what’s the comfort food move? 

I would go for a Thai curry dish called khao soi.

 

Omg khao soi rocks, you gotta try the one at Monsoon Siam if you haven’t already.

Yesss that’s like the only one I can find in Charlottesville. It’s actually pretty good.

 

Thai Cuisine & Noodle House also usually has it, and it’s my fave Thai place in town, just sayin’. But anyway BACK TO THE MEMO I GO.


---
Interviewed by Nicky Demitry '26 

Counsel's Counsel: November 1, 2023


Counsel’s Counsel is the world’s preeminent advice column for law students. Written by recent UVA Law graduate, Jane Doe, J.D.


Question:

Dear Jane: I am a 1L seeking advice on the month of November. As I write this letter, it is nearly Halloweekend, the spookiest time of the year. And I am sufficiently spooked (but mostly naïve).

First, I have been hearing buzz about the PILA Auction. What even is that? Should I be going? Should someone in my position be allowing themselves to have any joy whatsoever? Will I find it at the PILA Auction? Please advise.

Second, and I hate to be the 1L who asks about outlining, but outlining. Should I be doing it now? How much should I be doing it? Should I be doing it with a group of friends? Should I be doing it in view of everybody else in my class so they know I’m working harder than they are? Why do some of my classmates insist on making a performance out of how hard they work and a competition out of who is the most stressed? Please advise.

Finally, if I stay in Charlottesville for Thanksgiving instead of going home, will my family still love me? By car, I live about eight  hours from Charlottesville. Considering we do not get the whole week of Thanksgiving off, I’m thinking I might hunker down in Pav and be productive. Is that a bad idea? Am I a bad person for choosing exam prep over my loved ones? Will they understand? Will I be removed from the will? Please advise.

- Treading Water.

P.S. Do I need to be applying to jobs for next summer yet? Is “Splitsgiving” a real thing? Is my significant other going to break up with me because I'm prioritizing Torts over them?

 

Answer:

Treading Water: First things first, please take a deep breath. Only a frantic, Type-A 1L is capable of the barrage of questions you’ve just thrown at me. Luckily for you, I have all of the answers to get you through the next month in one piece.

You should absolutely go to the PILA Auction. The live auction is a great way to show off how rich you are to your section mates. Nothing screams “my dad is a big law partner in New York” like bidding over $500 on a basketball game against Professors Schwartzman and Schragger. The silent auction is also a fun study break. This year, it is being held at the new Forum Hotel, so you can easily leave early and go to the library to grind for a few more hours in cocktail attire. Here's the bottom line—having a reputation of hating public interest law this early in the year isn’t a great look. 

If you are worried about outlining, you’re in luck! Student Affairs is hosting the first Torte Club this week. Grab a pastry and listen to your very distinguished Civil Procedure professor and two 3Ls on VLR talk about their methods for studying for finals. You’ll hear from said professor that all you need to do is carefully read each case four times before the exam, and then you too can clerk for Justice Thomas. The VLR 3Ls will probably tell you to drop out now if you haven’t started outlining yet.

The only place you should be outlining is in the Gunner Pit. If you aren’t perceived as a gunner, you won’t be successful in law school. Being a 1L isn’t really about working hard; it’s about complaining about how much work you have. Forming a study group with a few friends from your section is a great idea. Everyone will really appreciate it when your study group discusses supplemental jurisdiction aloud on the second floor of the library instead of reserving a study room.  

It sounds like you should skip Thanksgiving this year. Trust me, your family will be giving thanks that they don’t have to deal with your miserable, frantic energy for five days. Plus, your parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins will all forgive you for skipping Thanksgiving a few years from now when you get them tickets to hear your first oral argument at the Supreme Court. If you aren’t making your famous pumpkin pie this year, it’s possible you’ll be removed from the will. It doesn’t matter though—you’ll be rolling in extra cash from your clerkship bonus.

You’re naïve, but you’ve caught on that the start of finals season is the spookiest time of year at UVA Law. “Splitsgiving” is absolutely real. You will get a job eventually, it just might not be at the DOJ. You’ve got this!

 - Jane Doe, J.D.


For a serious response to your serious inquiries, please access the anonymous submission form using the QR code below.