Court of Petty Appeals: Concerned Students of UVA Law v. Mark Graff

Concerned Students of UVA Law

 v.

Mark Graff, Student Bar Association President, and Ryan Keane, Court Jester

78 U.Va 4 (2025)

Wolff, J., delivers the opinion of the Court.

 In early 2025, President Mark Graff ran for president promising (in the words of plaintiffs) “some mumbo jumbo about hope and change,” but most importantly to the constituency, a return of “kegs in Spies” and similar vibes-related events. One such event is the Foxfield Races, a semi-annual horse racing event in Albemarle County. Replacing the previously “mid” event of Fauxfield, the return of REAL horse racing caused considerable interest among the study body. Significant demand caused tickets to the Foxfield Races to sell out within minutes of the purchase period opening. Plaintiffs further allege the  artificially restricted supply and a restricted resale market further furthering the monopoly on sales.

Now, the self-styled “Concerned Students of UVA Law” bring  claims of monopolization and unjust enrichment before this honorable, respected court and against the alleged wrongdoers, Mark Graff and Ryan Keane. Their main claims rest upon the alleged harm that they did not receive tickets to the event through the fault of the defendants. For the reasons set forth below, we REJECT the claims of the Concerned Students against President Graff and DISMISS the case against him WITH PREJUDICE. However, we find there is merit to some of the arguments against Court Jester Ryan Keane. We REMAND Keane’s case to the district court for consideration consistent with this ruling.

Without reaching the issues of monopolization or unjust enrichment, we hold that President Graff enjoys absolute immunity prosecution for acts committed within his "core constitutional powers," such as commanding the military, foreign relations, and organizing bar review events. For other "official acts," there is a presumption of immunity that can only be overcome if the plaintiff can demonstrate it would not interfere with the President Graff’s executive functions. Thus, on this issue, we need not reach the merits of the argument; abandoning Fauxfield for Foxfield, and instituting an administrative system to distribute tickets to campus events, are squarely within his executive powers. However, we will address a few of the claims of plaintiffs here in the interest of creating dicta for law review articles to analyze.

While it is not the place of this Court to make policy decisions, the Court does note that this endeavor has significantly improved the overall experience for students. More students are now attending a better event, making the judgement of the defendants seem sound. The normal cost of a ticket for admission to Foxfield is $65. However, this price does not include drinks or transportation, nor does it include designated space in the infield, all of which is included in the price offered by SBA. Further, the plaintiffs’ contributory negligence acts as a bar to their claims; the Graff Administration issued no fewer than four (4) warnings and no more than five (5) notifications to the student body about the impending sale of tickets. Plaintiffs were adequately warned that tickets were limited and would sell out; they did not act quickly enough, which is their responsibility as (alleged) adults. Additionally, plaintiffs have not exhausted all of their remedies. There remains the chance that they can receive a ticket off the waitlist. Thus, even if we did reach the merits of their frivolous arguments, plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail.

As for Mr. Keane, the Court finds that he is a clown and thereby does not enjoy presidential immunity. However, we remand his case with the above facts in his favor noted, specifically that the event will likely “slap.”

Berklich, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

 In finding President Mark Graff above prosecution for all “core constitutional powers” the Court effectively creates a “law free zone” around the office of Student Bar Association (“SBA”) President.

This is an exceptionally dangerous precedent to set, given that the President is expressly delegated with the powers of SBA Parliamentarian. Unless appealed, Presidential interpretation of the constitution and bylaws is, effectively, law. And with the sole Presidential power to interpret, comes the power to interpret what is and is not a successful appeal: a Catch-22 worthy of Heller. Though this is an extreme example, tyrannies have been built on far more tenuous circumstances.

More realistic is an abuse of executory duties. The President could, if he or she wishes, wield a distressingly preferential amount of discretion in, for instance, Bar Review or Kegs in Spies (buying perhaps only kegs of watered down “Natural Light” or hosting events exclusively at The Virginian). Thankfully President Graff is a benevolent leader, now dictator, transformed by the words of this Court. The next President may not be so genteel. I must reject the Court’s finding that the President has immunity for all so called “core constitutional powers.” With no way to impeach and without the potential to face liability, the President is above the law.

However, in the case at hand, Plaintiffs’ claims against President Graff and Funnyman-in-Chief Ryan Keane are without merit. As the majority pointed out, students remain free to attend Foxfield, only without the trappings of a UVA Law event. There can be no monopoly on sales. UVA Law’s Weil Foxfield Races is fundamentally the same product as Foxfield Races (the scent of horses, booze, standing outside in the sun in a seersucker or a cocktail dress, etc.). The two are extremely close substitutes. In addition, SBA has made a good faith effort to expand ticket sales, and the limited resale market is little more than an administrative convenience.

Demitry, C.J., Submitting a Brief for the Horses

Amicus Curiae: Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Thoroughbreds

While the litigants quibble over kegs and constitutional immunities, this Court would be remiss not to acknowledge the only truly involuntary participants in this affair: the horses. Unlike law students, who at least nominally chose to endure the ordeal of civil procedure, the thoroughbreds at Foxfield did not sign up for constitutional interpretation, or for hordes of future attorneys in seersucker shrieking “One more lap!” between gulps of boxed rosé.

Virginia’s affection for horse-based entertainment has always carried a darker underbelly. From colonial foxhunts to the modern steeplechase, the Commonwealth has a long and checkered history of transforming animal suffering into genteel spectacle. Steeplechase in particular—where horses are forced to leap over fences and ditches at high speed, often resulting in broken legs and “humane destruction” behind the hedgerows—remains one of the most dangerous sports for equines. Virginians have for centuries cloaked this cruelty in seersucker and juleps, insisting it is tradition, culture, or “networking.” But for the horses, it is less networking than neck-breaking, a reminder that what the bar calls “vibes” often comes at the expense of the very creatures that make the pageantry possible. And before you ask, yes I am very fun at parties, on the rare occasion that I am invited to one.

Amicus does not contend that Foxfield must be abolished outright—though that thought, along with abolishing polo, has crossed our mind. Rather, we urge this Court to recognize that any balancing test weighing “vibes” against “animal dignity” has been skewed heavily in favor of the former. At minimum, safeguards should be imposed: fewer airhorns, more carrots; a moratorium on ironic horse-betting parlays; and an outright ban on chanting “go horses.”

If Foxfield “slaps,” as Defendants insist, then let it slap with due regard to the creatures doing the actual slapping of hooves against turf. Law students may recover from heatstroke and hangovers. The horses, noble though unwilling, deserve at least the same constitutional concern this Court affords to Kegs in Spies.

Accordingly, Amicus prays that in future SBA ticketing schemes, the welfare of the equine performers be given weight commensurate with their contribution—which is to say, all of it. And for what it’s worth, Amicus is in concurrence with the Court’s finding of clownery in regards to Mr. Keane.