Court of Petty Appeals: The University of Virginia School of Law Student Bar Association v. Some Large Quantity of “Free” Food Left in Refrigerators

The University of Virginia School of Law Student Bar Association 

v.  

Some Large Quantity of “Free” Food Left in Refrigerators 

79 U.Va 4 (2026) 

Berklich, C.J., delivers the opinion of the Court, in which Wu, C.J., Lawson, Vanger, Boatright, Moore, Lozada, and Koeppel, J.J. join. 

Berklich, C.J., delivers the opinion of the Court. 

Facts 

The case before us is an asset forfeiture case, initiated by the Student Bar Association of the University of Virginia School of Law (“SBA”). The case challenges the rightful ownership of some large quantity of “free” food left in the Scott Commons refrigerators. The food has resided in the refrigerators for an indeterminate but lengthy amount of time, potentially reaching years. Bowls of “slop” and Chick-fil-A sandwiches fill the drawers, shelves, and reach even the butter Popemobile. The SBA charges these assets are forfeit—in violation of the criminal common-law offense of “shelf hoarding” and the sin of gluttony. Before forfeiture, notice was posted to the UVA Law 2026/2027 GroupMe. Supposed owners, claiming innocence, now come forward to contest.  

Discussion 

Jurisdiction 

Asset forfeiture cases and in rem jurisdiction is novel work for the Court of Petty Appeals. Never before have we considered a case of such a type. The alleged owners of the free food protest that this jurisdiction is inappropriate: the owners of the food are known. We reject this reality, and substitute it for our own legal fiction. Petty Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1: Fairness, Revised Ed. (2024) (“We do what we want.”) The Court will choose to turn a blind eye (and nose, tongue, etc.) to the facts on the ground of the food in the fridge. In rem jurisdiction remains appropriate as we “cannot”—i.e., refuse to—determine who the owners actually are. 

Standard 

SBA must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the food is linked to some underlying nexus of illegal (or unsavory) activity. And gee do they have their work cut out for them. Free food is the backbone, nay the load-bearing stripper pole in the Miami condo, of the UVA Law student experience. Free food at events is the single greatest uniter of the student body. It may be the only reason anyone, much less an entire 1L section, has ever attended a talk on “Natural Law.” By its second order effect of bringing students together, it has catalyzed political careers, greased the partnership track, inspired romantic relationships via meet-cute, and caused many a 1L to wander into the offices of the failing Law Weekly for its Monday night meeting, like a grub fish into the mouth of an angler. What criminal activity does SBA then allege? 

SBA simply posits that free food clogging the fridge harms the ability of other students to store their food as well. This is a sound and sobering argument. While students who get free food at events have already had their bellies filled, students who bring their food from home have not. In storing excess food in public refrigerators, free-fooders may deny that space to a student who has not yet been fed. Defendants argue that pack-lunchers have ample opportunities to get food elsewhere, such as events, and from the Sidley Austin Café, but we must ultimately respect their health and dining choices, which may limit them from eating school food. (Even if it’s weird shit, like refusing to eat olive oil because it’s “too unhealthy.” The Court respectfully asks you to grow up.) Accommodating the packers is now of the utmost importance because of the declining quality of the Café: smaller sandwiches, broken scales, etc. Alas, all things go.  

All this to say, the Court will respect the lesser-known common-law criminal action against “shelf hoarding” and gluttony, also known as “eyes-too-big-for-your-stomach-, huh?” syndrome.  

Defenses 

Alleged owners of the free food protest, and raise the “innocent owner” defense. They charge that they (1) had no knowledge of the illegal actions that their food, collectively, was being used for and (2) in the alternative, upon learning that their food was being used for illegal purposes, they acted reasonably to the best of their ability to stop that illegal use.  

Defendants charge that any individual piece of food resided in the Scott Commons refrigerators for no longer than a week, and often that it was devoured within days, or hours. However, given the high frequency of events at the Law School, no day would go by where free food would not be obtained, and would then be substituted for other fridge food from events past. The upper-middling food quality (fast casual) made it so no single bowl or paper-wrapped sandwich was visually dissimilar enough from a counterpart in order to distinguish them (the “slop” defense). Defendants thus suggest that because no individual piece of food inhabited the fridge for a lengthy period of time, that there is no nexus to the crime of “shelf-hoarding.”  

The Court rejects this claim. Defendants present a case they see as analogous to the Ship of Theseus—which asks whether a ship whose parts are replaced one at a time, is in fact the same ship after each part is new. However, defendants make an untenable leap. Their argument effectively becomes: because each part is replaced, there is no ship. This takes things too far. An occupation by an aggregate of items is still an occupation.  

When defendants received a warning notice via GroupMe, and failed to remove all food and stop putting new food in, they invalidated their own innocent owner defense. The Court finds that defendants, though not here charged with a criminal act, cannot say that they were unaware, or that they reasonably acted counter, to the nexus of criminal activity that their property enabled.  

Forfeiture Procedures 

Lastly, defendants object to the reasoning of the forfeiture. As one brief so eloquently put it: “What the hell is SBA going to do with a pile of week-old Roots bowls?” That is not our question to answer, nor is it our question to adjudicate, but it has been made known to us that at the next Kegs in Spies event, there’s a plan to empty the forfeited goods into a kiddie pool, and give everyone a compostable spoon. Yuck, the Court says. We will be at Sedona. 

Conclusion 

The assets in question in the Scott Commons refrigerators are FORFEIT to the UVA School of Law Student Bar Association. Defendants are to stop using public refrigerators to store acres of rice soaked in chipotle-lime sauce, and sandwiches whose meat is becoming indistinguishable from the pickles mashed into their buns. Go join a journal for Christ’s sake, and make it their problem.  

SO ORDERED.