Hot Bench: Dean Leslie Kendrick '06

Virginia Law Weekly January 31, 2024

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

Virginia Law Weekly November 29, 2023

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

Virginia Law Weekly November 15, 2023

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

Virginia Law Weekly 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

Virginia Law Weekly November 15, 2023

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)

Virginia Law Weekly November 8, 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

Virginia Law Weekly November 8, 2023

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

Virginia Law Weekly 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.

Court of Petty Appeals: Two of the Final Three 1L Assassins (the Girlies) v. Justice Eternal, Court of As- sassins, League of Shadows, Ra's Al Ghul, Assassin 3

Virginia Law Weekly November 1, 2023

Two of the Final Three 1L Assassins (the Girlies)
v.
Justice Eternal, Court of Assassins, League of Shadows, Ra's Al Ghul, Assassin
3 76 U.Va 8 (2023)

Demitry, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

We hear this case on appeal after the bloody events of October 23, 2023, in the final round of 1L Assassins. At issue are the results of Assassins (which have still not been made clear to this Court). Plaintiff-appellants (“the Girlies”) appeal the decision of summary judgment for defendant, wherein defendant was declared the 1L victor[1] of Assassins ’23 (“Assassin 3”). Plaintiff-appellants contend on appeal that the Court’s declaration of victory for the defendant was based on insufficient evidence. Furthermore, plaintiff-appellants also object to the failure of the defendants to release relevant video evidence of the final moments of Assassins ’23, which would have been properly requested by plaintiffs during the process of discovery had the plaintiff(s) not been Just a Girl.[2] Appellants now ask us to vacate judgment for defendants and remand for further proceedings, including sufficient discovery of any and all electronic recordings and videotapes taken by friends of Assassin 3, as the defendants surely possess evidence of what transpired that fateful afternoon. Appellants argue that the video footage is discoverable and relevant to the case before us.

Immediately following the events from which this suit arose (known colloquially as “the 1L final showdown”), defendants moved for summary judgment, asking the Court of Assassins to declare defendant the winner of 1L Assassins. Plaintiffs in their response to defendant’s motion argued that no reasonable jury could find in favor of defendants, given that no discovery had yet been permitted and there was therefore no evidence upon which this case could be decided. Plaintiffs simultaneously moved to compel discovery of the video footage of the contested events. The Court of Assassins denied plaintiff’s motion and granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, declaring them the 1L winner. We believe that the Court of Assassins erred in so quickly granting summary judgment to defendant, and we therefore vacate this decision.

Appellants contend in their appeal that the video evidence, currently in possession of defendants, is relevant and discoverable. In their appeal, Appellants contend the following:

This video footage will show that a) Defendant Assassin 3 struck innocent bystander Thomas Ross, with a balled up sock that was intended for his true target(s), and b) one of the Plaintiffs stabbed Assassin 3 with a spoon at the precise moment that he fuckin [sic] YEETED a GIANT BALLED UP PAIR OF SOCKS AT HER LEFT EYEBALL AT POINT BLANK RANGE AS HARD AS HE COULD. YES, IN THE FACE.

Appellants have included signed witness affidavits in their appeal, including one by Ashanti Jones ’26, stating that she clearly saw the Defendant strike Mr. Ross ’26 with the socks as he tried to body-block his colleague from the furious barrage of said socks. If this were true, this would necessarily disqualify Assassin 3 from winning at Assassins, as his alleged assault on Mr. Ross predated his merciless sock execution of Plaintiff’s left eye.

The court’s decision to grant summary judgment for defendant was made before any discovery could be conducted by either parties. We therefore vacate the decision of the Court of Assassins and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND AND ISSUES PRESENTED

In the opening documents sent to the Virginia Law student body, the Justice Eternal noted that: “Gunner-esque disputes may result in both parties being ‘killed.’” However, as all parties involved in Assassins have been killed (to some extent), the Court does not find that this rule applies. Furthermore, the Court of Petty Appeals rejects the sweeping language of “Gunner-esque disputes” and wishes to remind the Justice Eternal that Petty Disputes hold prima facie precedence over Gunner-esque disputes, as to be Gunner-esque is to be petty by definition.[3]

Some might argue that this Court’s findings are necessarily tainted by the fact that this Esteemed Member of the Court is also one of the alleged “losers” of assassins and should subsequently recuse myselfherself from the proceedings. The Court does not find that argument salient, because the Court said so.[4]

II. ANALYSIS

The Court feels the need to recognize the underlying public policy concerns of this case in answering the issue presented as well as the need to contend with the facts of law. It is true that one of the Girlies, Caroline Stice ’26, had a fractured neck and was in a literal neck brace at the time of her assassination.[5] Does the spirit of collegiality have a place in a game like Assassins?[6] Should we be throwing socks at such velocity at individuals with broken necks? Should there be an increase in legislation surrounding the firing of socks in such high numbers, such as restrictions on what basically constitute sock bump stocks? Should I not be alluding to the very real issue of gun control in America in my stupid treatise on assassins? Maybe. I don’t know. I’m tired. This is not rhetoric. Someone edit me.

The Court urges caution, however, on finding for a different victor in Assassins. Even if examination of evidence in a new trial yields a new result, the Court notes that both Plaintiffs have failed to state an ultimate claim upon which relief can be granted, nor do they seem particularly invested in doing so in the future. The winner of the 1L Assassins’ game must go on to do battle against the 2Ls and 3Ls, and the Court urges the Plaintiffs to consider who best would represent their class in an Assassins’ Battle Royale showdown—is it the person who brought, like, 20 pairs of socks to school with them to throw at two girlies as they were bottle-necked in their Crim class, with no escape, one of whom had a broken neck? Or, do we want to throw our allegiance behind the other two of the final three—one of whom has the aforementioned fractured neck, and the other of whom is writing to complain about the results of Assassins, hopefully embodying Big Karen Energy, and who also became Very Anxious[7] upon learning she was in the final three of assassins and took that fact as tacit proof that now everyone knows she’s violently antisocial.

III. CONCLUSION

The Court vacates the default judgment of the lower court and remands for further proceedings. The Court also respectfully requests that Justice Eternal officially declare a winner, and that said winner be Sami, so the 1Ls do actually have a chance at winning something, instead of losing, the way 1Ls always do. SeeLiberals Who Are Bad At Using Canva v. The Federalist Society at UVA Law 76 U.Va 4 (2023) (citing 2Ls v. 1Ls, 74 U.Va 2 (2021) (Tonseth, C.J., dissenting) (“[T]he implication that 1Ls always lose continues to be the bedrock of this esteemed Court.”)). So ordered.

Sandu, J., concurring in the judgment.

I do not know what business the Court of Petty Appeals has in hearing cases from the Court of Assassins, as parties have failed to first exhaust available remedies through the Assassins court system, including the Court of Assassins Appeals. This jurisdictional issue goes to the fundamental nature of our Court and cannot be waived by the parties. It would be an unconstitutional infringement upon the authority of a parallel court system to permit this suit to continue. Nevertheless, ignoring jurisdictional concerns in order to ensure that 1Ls lose, and even bringing suit about a game that only 1Ls care about in the first place are such petty actions that I cannot help but view that in this scenario, the Court’s jurisdiction is proper, if only on an ad hoc basis.

We must find for movants consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), which states in part that: “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to anymaterial fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (emphasis added). Because this is a situation in which there is a genuine dispute as to material fact, summary judgment was improper. Therefore, while this Court should never have heard the case in the first place, the resulting outcome is proper based on the facts of the case.

---
ncd8kt@virginia.edu
ms7mn@virginia.edu

[1] I actually have no real idea who won, technically. Did I stab Sami at the same time a sock was thrown at my face with such zeal that I finally have a valid reason to treat myself to Botox/reparative plastic surgery? Or did he get me first? All I did was email Justice Eternal that I was probably dead, but that it was chaos. War is hell.

[2] Evidenced by the fact that I am literally just a girl.

[3] Basically the “all tequilas are mezcal, but not all mezcals are tequila” rule.

[4] Plus, I’m writing this when I truly should be working on my major memo draft, and instead I’m balls deep in reviewing my civ pro notes because I’m an idiot, so who’s the real loser, huh!? Me, still.

[5] See Exhibit 1, condition of Plaintiff.

[6] See Exhibit 2, correspondence between Marissa Varnado and Plaintiff Nicky Demitry about Plaintiff Caroline Stice.

[7] See Exhibit 3, correspondence indicating Plaintiff’s maladjusted childhood anxiety dreams.

Hot Bench: Kevin Kissinger '26

Virginia Law Weekly November 1, 2023

We’ll start with where are you from, what were you doing before coming to Charlottesville, all of the typical stuff?

I am from Spokane, Washington, and I lived in Washington all my life. Coming to Charlottesville is the first time I’ve ever been east of the Mississippi River for more than a few days. I went to Washington State for undergrad and studied political science and French, and before law school I worked as a court clerk at a trial court in Spokane. I handled evidence and worked directly with a judge. It was interesting to get a look at what they did in chambers and to see how the court worked.

It seems like half of the UVA Law class plans on clerking after graduation, but you already got a chance to do some of that work. Can you tell me a little more about that experience?

The work I did was a little different from a clerkship you’d get after law school. My main job was handling evidence at trials. I was responsible for physically handling anything from drugs, money, pictures, and weapons during trials and bringing them to the jury any time the attorneys requested it.

Can you tell me about the wildest evidence story you have?

It is generally a little spooky to handle weapons that were used to commit crimes, but the craziest thing that I handled was actually a vehicle. We obviously could not bring it inside the courtroom, but I stayed with it outside the courtroom and made sure it was prepared for the jury to view. What was crazy is that it was left in the exact same condition as three years earlier to the point where it still had uniquely preserved McDonalds food inside. It was pretty weird seeing a three-year old McChicken Sandwich with a bite taken out.

So when is the last time you’ve had McDonald’s?

I don’t think I’ve had McDonald’s since!

Let’s move on to your time here at UVA. What is your favorite case that you’ve studied?

There was one Contracts case about a dance studio where the studio kept encouraging an old woman to buy dance lessons and promising she would become a great dancer. The judge seemed to have a fun time writing the opinion. This may just be my high school English literary analysis coming out, but I love how the judge seemed to use language to make it feel like you were dancing through the literary form of the opinion.

I think that one was just a note case in our class. I will have to bring that up with Professor Johnston. Anyway, you seem to have a lot of legal experience already. Has that informed your decision to come to law school?

Absolutely, my goal coming to UVA is to clerk after graduation. I first got experience working in the student judicial body in undergrad, and this paired with my experience as a court clerk after undergrad has made me realize that I want to eventually become a judge. I love writing, researching, and analyzing complex issues, and it seems like a fun job where I can use the skills that I love to use so much.

Interesting, so you want to become a judge. Do you feel like you make good decisions?

I tend to overthink things. If there are two equally good or bad options it may take me a while to come to a final decision. Although, as a disclaimer, I have never been arrested, and I’ve never been in legal trouble, so I think I tend to make good decisions.

If you were not in law school, what would you be doing?

My fantasy job would be a professional musician. I played clarinet and saxophone through college. I have not played a lot recently, but music is still an outlet that I use to express myself in a way that I enjoy doing. I would love to make music professionally for movies or for video games to bring people together for an otherworldly experience.

Okay, now it's time for our lightning round! Favorite juice?

Apple.

And yet there is a strawberry smoothie sitting on the table between us?

Yeah, I am a big fruit guy.

Fair enough. Favorite dessert?

For a Halloween theme, I will go with candy corn. Coach Mike Leach once had a rant about candy corn, and I was very offended by it. He stepped over the line with that one.

I think we’ve all been disappointed once or twice by a Mike Leach rant, but candy corn? Really?

I didn’t want to say apple pie because I did just say I like apple juice, but that is probably actually my favorite dessert.

Favorite living centenarian?

Sister Jean from Loyola Chicago. I hope to be as dedicated to something like college basketball at 104!

Okay, that’s a very wholesome answer, maybe not quite what I was expecting. What about your favorite Cabinet-level executive branch position?

Secretary of Transportation. I think there is a lot of opportunity to improve the public transportation system.

Another very good answer, but not the direction I thought you would go. How about this, what famous historical figure does your grandfather remind you of?

Are you talking about Henry Kissinger? I shouldn’t be surprised.

Yes! I’m sorry. But…are you?

I will give you the response I always give when people ask me that: “No, thank goodness.” Besides, both of my grandfathers were much cooler than Henry was. Sorry, I realize I may have just disappointed half of your readership with that answer.[1]

You may have disappointed half of our readership, but you probably relieved the other half. Let's finish this up with: If you could live in one movie universe, what would it be?

I am a hardcore Harry Potter fan and would die happy if that world was real. I would also love to live in a universe equivalent to National Treasure. My family grew up around history, and going on an adventure to discover history lost to time would be incredible.

---
Interviewed by Noah Coco ‘26

Court of Petty Appeals: Section J Peer Advisor v. The Honorable Stephen Foss

Virginia Law Weekly October 26, 2023

Section J Peer Advisor
v.
The Honorable Stephen Foss
76 U.Va 7 (2023)

Every year,[1] one brave Law Weekly writer ranks the 1L softball team names and subsequently receives massive backlash from the 1L community. Still, he or she persists. Like Bob Woodward, Ida B. Wells, Walter Cronkite, and Ronald Burgundy, journalists such as Respondent are the backbone of our society. Journalistic integrity is dying, and Petitioner would have this Court deal it a dying blow. We refuse to do so. This Court rules in favor of the omnipotent Respondent, Mr. Foss.[2]

I. Facts

The facts of this case are fairly straightforward and plenty petty.

On September 27, 2023, the Virginia Law Weekly published an article in which Respondent, Stephen Foss ’25, ranked the 1L section softball team names. Respondent ranked the names according to various arbitrary criteria, but mostly based on what he called “vibes.” Within these satirical rankings, Section J’s softball team name—“J’Accuse”—was ranked “somewhere in the middle.”

On October 1, 2023, Section J’s softball team (J’Accuse) won the prestigious and all important 1L softball tournament.[3] Following J’Accuse’s victory, a Section J peer advisor petitioned this Court for a review of the softball team name rankings in light of the team’s recent success on the softball diamond. Petitioner claims that respondent was:

“ . . . Insufficient in his analysis since he [Foss] did not factor in the fact that the team name serves slay on the jersey, (it’s a legal reference in FRENCH—what other team has done that??) [T]he team works extremely hard to support each other on the field and encourages each other to learn and try new things, and the fact that Section J always has fun on the field, no matter the opponent.”

II. Standing

First, Petitioner has no standing. Petitioner is a peer advisor, not a member of the J’Accuse softball team, or even a 1L for that matter. Therefore, the Petitioner has suffered no injury and has no standing. Although this Court appreciates pettiness in all its forms, quasi-helicopter-parenting of this sort will be dismissed swiftly and absolutely. This case could be dismissed on the issue of standing alone, but because it’s dumber than rocks and contains a plethora of other issues, I will address some of those issues below.

III. Analysis

Petitioner’s complaint is included in its entirety above. As well-educated Law Weekly readers will see, even if all of Petitioner's claims are taken at face value, they are still insufficient to establish a cause of action. Petitioner’s argument can be characterized as follows: “Section J won the softball tournament, therefore, Section J should get a better placement in the softball team name rankings.” The two things are completely unrelated. How hard a team works, and how much a team “encourages each other to try and learn new things,” has absolutely nothing to do with how good (or bad) their softball team name is. J’Accuse was a middling team name before the tournament, and is still the same middling name afterwards.

I applaud J’Accuse for winning the 1L softball tournament, but their victory is unrelated to the team name rankings. If Section J decided to change their name, that may be reason to reconsider the rankings (and if my aunt had wheels, maybe she'd be a bike). This case is not ripe for adjudication.

IV. Some Dicta

Though not implicated in this case, this Court questions the truthfulness of the facts alleged by the petitioner. Petitioner alleges that J’Accuse “works extremely hard to support each other on the field.” However, there is evidence that J’Accuse only let nine people (out of 30+ section mates) hit during the championship and only lets those who show up to practice to play in games. Perhaps the petitioner meant that J’Accuse supports each other on the field, but that support is limited to the section mates that can hit dingers.

To be clear, kudos to J’Accuse for winning by any means necessary. This Court in no way means to shame J’Accuse for stacking their lineup—do whatever it takes to win. You’re champions. History remembers those with t-shirts, not those who get along with their future colleagues. However, petitioner (a non-Section J member) watched J’Accuse exclude 20+ section mates and then try to characterize the team as if they are the poster-child for teamwork, sunshine, and rainbows. That is laughable, and this Court would laugh if it was not already choking on irony.

V. Conclusion

If petty appeals ceased then so would this Court and what a dark day that would be. In dismissing Petitioner’s prayers for relief, this Court in no way means to discourage further petty litigation. Instead, let this decision be a guide to future petty parties. 1) Standing is required, and therefore, Petitioner must have suffered an injury for which the Respondent was responsible. 2) The prayer for relief, the conduct, and the circumstances bringing about the litigation must all be causally relevant to one another. Performance on the softball field has no impact on a team name’s merit.

This Court rules in favor of the charitable respondent, Mr. Foss.[4]

Coleman, J., concurring in the judgment.

I don't have a problem with a post hoc adjustment to the name rankings. But I would let this paper be run by 1Ls before I afford that privilege to Section J. You played nine people in the tournament. Your softball team is as devoid of collegiality as the Columbia or U. Chicago law schools. For that reason alone, I concur in the judgment.

Coco, J., concurring in the judgment.

While I concur in the judgment of the majority, I cannot accept the analysis employed to reach its conclusion. Any analytical framework that relegates Section C to “Dead Last” in any ranking certainly has its deficiencies. It is nonetheless the case, however, that the application of any other reasonable methodology by this Court will affirm Section J’s mediocrity in the 1L softball name rankings.

Where the Petitioner’s claim indisputably falls short is its clear failure to satisfy the vibes standard of due process.1[5] This Court has articulated a three-factor vibes test when evaluating any request for reconsideration of a published listicle. A party must establish: 1) a clear and definite breach of vibes through the conduct of the Virginia Law Weekly; 2) a positive vibe check as assessed by a reasonably prudent person; and 3) a compelling public interest in remedying the alleged vibefeasance.[6]

The vibes demonstrated by the honorable Justice Foss were unimpeachable and thus, not subject to re-evaluation.

When considering the second factor, the majority has already alluded to the fact that Section J’s conduct on the field is not exemplary of vibes that warrant a reconsideration of the 1L team name rankings. Moreover, evidence has been adduced that following Section J’s championship win, its members felt compelled to interrupt Professor Thomas Frampton’s Criminal Law class to announce their victory to the public at-large. This Court does not welcome such grandstanding and its attendant breach of the vibes check. As such, a reasonably prudent person could not conclude that Section J would pass any such vibes check.

The weight of the first two factors, alone, is sufficient to demonstrate that Section J does not satisfy the vibes standard of due process, and no consideration of the public interest is necessary. Nonetheless, I think it appropriate to note that Section J’s aforementioned conduct fails this third factor as well. A law degree is worth only as much as the vibes that it connotes, and approval of Section J’s questionable vibes would tarnish the value of this venerable asset.

For all of these reasons, Section J’s request for reevaluation of their softball team name ranking must unequivocally be rejected.

Sandu, J., joined by Allard, J., dissenting.

“J’accuse” has almost everything you need for a perfect name—a legal pun and the prominent feature of the section’s letter. The only thing it is missing is some sort of softball pun. Frankly, we have no idea what softball has to do with French literature. Nevertheless, speaking for the French majors on this Court, we cannot find against the petitioner. It is a core part of our very identity, along with talking about that time we studied abroad, to insert our knowledge of French in every possible situation. Our linguistic laurels ought to be rewarded, not condemned. In the words of Émile Zola, we say that “la vérité et la justice sont souveraines, car elles seules assurent la grandeur des nations.”[7]

More fundamentally, however, this case does not fall within the premise that “1Ls always lose,” as petitioner is not, in fact, a 1L. Even if the true petitioners are 1Ls, given that the suit is brought on their behalf, the facts of this case fall under the exception that “1Ls may win if it is funnier.” And what could be funnier than finding in favor of 1Ls against a justice on this very Court? For these reasons, we respectfully dissent.

---
css7aj@virginia.edu

[1] Just the last two years, actually.

[2] Me.

[3] Let it be emphasized that Section J class of 2026 did not bring this complaint, nor any complaint. This claim is brought by one of their peer advisors. Section J took care of business on the diamond and nothing else. Any ricochet shots inflicted on Section J are not intended, though, perhaps they are inevitable.

[4] Still me.

[5] Holmes, Vibes and the Common Law.

[6] 2L v. COVID Protocols, 74 U.Va 16 (2022).

[7] Émile Zola, La Verité en Marche.

Hot Bench: Maggie Walker '26

Virginia Law Weekly October 26, 2023

Hi, Maggie! 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?

I am from Cincinnati, Ohio. Before this, I was a student at Miami University. I studied political science and strategic communications. Before coming to law school, during undergrad, I was a volunteer at the SPCA Cincinnati. There, I walked dogs and was a member of the behavioral team, where I worked with dogs with behavioral issues such as anxiety. I also fostered dogs during COVID-19 lockdown. Through fostering, I adopted a dog from a South Korean dog meat farm. The Humane Society International closed down a farm and rescued nearly 200 dogs. One of those dogs was my dog, Wheatley. He was sent to the SPCA Cincinnati along with roughly twenty other dogs from the farm closure.

Animal care to law school isn’t the most obvious of transitions—what inspired you to go this route?

That is very true. Law has always been my final goal. Animal care is just something I am very passionate about. The two fields are not too related, but I find enjoyment out of both in different ways. Currently, I have a side gig dog walking for Charlottesville locals. It’s a fun de-stress activity, and I get to spend some time with cute dogs!

Do you plan to incorporate animal care into your legal career?

Unfortunately, my future legal career will probably not involve animals, but I will continue to foster and volunteer as much as I can.

What are your current legal career aspirations?

While I have not put too much thought into specifics, at the moment I am just trying to get through the first semester, but I would like to do litigation, preferably in the California market. I am not too sure of what type of litigation—I am open to exploring and seeing what fits me.

Lighting round!

What is your favorite non-domesticated animal?

I am a big fan of otters.

What Halloween costume are you most excited to see this year?

I am excited to see roller skating Barbie; I’m hoping people actually commit with roller skates.

What is your second least favorite candy?

Smarties. They taste like chalk.

Will you be playing ~winter holiday themed~ music on November 1st?

I will try to resist, but it will inevitably happen.

---
Interviewed by Ashanti Jones '26

Court of Petty Appeals: Commonwealth of Virginia v. Harvard Law Review Association

Virginia Law Weekly October 18, 2023

Commonwealth of Virginia
v.
Harvard Law Review Association
76 U.Va 6 (2023)

Allard, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

This case began as an antitrust suit brought by the Commonwealth of Virginia against defendant, the Harvard Law Review Association (“the Association”) for its publication of The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation. The Association removed to the Court of Petty Appeals in accordance with the Petty Rule of Civil Procedure 1.[1] We are perplexed by this decision and cannot help but smile at defendant’s ill-judged removal motion. Indeed, counsel’s decision to defend the case before this Court borders on malpractice. Though we are eager to punish the Association for its error, we cannot. Ultimately, though it pains us to do so, we find for the Association, because to do otherwise would benefit 1Ls.

Background

The Harvard Law Review Association is a nonprofit organization registered under the “laws” of Massachusetts. The Association distributes and publishes the Bluebook, an infamous and universally mocked[2] manual on pedantry. The Bluebook has been a repeated subject of controversy. Beyond innumerable tortious injuries to law students and practitioners alike, the Bluebook has been accused of fostering elitism,[3] it has been protested by students of its own ilk,[4] and it has even been aesthetically linked with Nazi Germany.[5]

There are many reasons to sue the peddlers of the Bluebook. But the Commonwealth has sued only for the Association’s monopolization of legal citation recommendations. The Commonwealth’s allegations are as follows.

Firstly, the Harvard Law Review Association and its fellow cartel members, the Columbia Law Review, the Pennsylvania Law Review, and the Yale Law Journal, earn millions in profits from the Bluebook—as much as $27.4 million between 2011 and 2o20.[6] The Harvard Law Review Association receives the largest chunk of these profits. Indeed, for fifty years, the Association jealously kept 100 percent of Bluebook profits for itself.[7] Inevitably, much of those profits come from 1Ls who are forced each year to purchase the Bluebookfor their legal writing classes.

Second, the Association’s prescriptivist tendencies have resulted in frequent updates to the Bluebook and a rapid growth in its page count.[8] The Association thus benefits from a “planned-obsolescence business model” because “law review editors are pretty much forced to buy each successive edition.”[9]

Finally, the Association has sought to thwart the work of would-be competitors. In late 2014, the developers of an open-source legal citation manual called BabyBlue, informed the Association that they planned to publish their manual online. In response, counsel for the Association sent a letter to BabyBlue asserting that the manual’s publication would infringe the Bluebook’s trademark rights.[10] Despite the Association’s efforts, BabyBlue was published, albeit under the name The Indigo Book.[11]

The Virginia Antitrust Act, Va. Code. Ann. § 59.1-9.7, makes unlawful “[e]very conspiracy, combination, or attempt to monopolize, or monopolization of, trade or commerce of this Commonwealth.” Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-9.11 further provides that courts may assess “a civil penalty of not more than $100,000 for each willful or flagrant violation of this chapter.”

Jurisdiction is proper in this case. The Association, by their removal motion, has waived any argument regarding personal jurisdiction. Further, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over all petty disputes related to the Law School. Because many at UVA Law would love nothing more than to stick it to the Association, this case is a quintessential petty grievance, and it thus falls within our jurisdiction.

We believe that the Virginia Antitrust Act clearly prohibits the Association’s monopolistic conduct. Indeed, it is clearly a flagrant violation subject to the heightened penalty. Nevertheless, we are bound to uphold it by a much more important body of law—the common law of this Court.

A decision against the Association would only benefit 1Ls, as they are the only students at the Law School who are likely to purchase a Bluebook. 2Ls and 3Ls have already purchased and long since forgotten about their copies of the Bluebook. And 1Ls must always lose.[12] This axiomatic rule is subject to only the narrowest exception: “1Ls may have rights when it is funnier for them to win . . . .”[13] Here, we recognize that it would be very funny to stick it to the dorks that write the Bluebook. But it is indisputably funnier to, after having recited a litany of criticisms of the Bluebook, nonetheless reach a ruling that is adverse to 1Ls.

Thus, we conclude that the Association may continue to monopolize the legal citation manual market, so long as the monopoly continues to primarily burden 1Ls. It is so ordered.

Moore, J. concurring in the judgment of the court.

I concur in the majority’s judgment in this case. But only a true gunner would write a COPA on the Bluebook over Fall Break. For that, I pity you.

Coleman, J. dissenting.

The majority erroneously concludes that this antitrust suit would only benefit 1Ls and future 1Ls. This conclusion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the damages in a class action antitrust case, which are calculated over the period of cartel misfeasance. So, 2Ls and 3Ls would be members of the relevant class.

But more importantly, I have two reasons for disagreeing with the majority’s ruling. First, I am a strict adherent to the Slatebook, the quirky but simplistic alternative style guide used by the Virginia Law Review. It is my intention to use every means of anticompetitive behavior to ensure that the Slatebook rules this land. Abusing my role on this court to effectuate that goal is a great opportunity.

Second, the majority does not consider the plight of the plaintiffs’ attorneys who stand to benefit the most from this type of case. And this is symptomatic of the general disdain for the plaintiffs bar among fancy law schools. None of you have the cajones to go years without income for just the prospect of a settlement, or the originality to think of novel causes of action. So, I will benefit the plaintiffs bar when I can.

Sandu, J. dissenting.

The only true and valid system of citation is the Law Weekly style guide. For this reason, I must respectfully dissent.

---
tya2us@virginia.edu
tqy7zz@virginia.edu
jxu6ad@virginina.edu
ms7mn@virginia.edu

[1] See Comedy v. Libel Show, 74 U.Va 21 (2022) (“[W]e do what we want.”).

[2] See e.g., Richard Posner, What Is Obviously Wrong with the Federal Judiciary, Yet Eminently Curable, Part I, 19 Green Bag 2d 187, 194 (2016) (correctly identifying the Bluebook as “560 pages of rubbish”); Richard Posner, The Bluebook Blues, 120 Yale L.J. 850, 851 (2011) (accurately describing the Bluebook as “a monstrous growth”).

[3] Fred R. Shapiro & Julie Graves Krishnaswami, The Secret History of the Bluebook, 100 Minn. L. Rev. 1563, 1568 (arguing that the Bluebook’s arcane rules are “one more of the many factors alienating lay people from the legal system as a whole”).

[4] Kendra Albert, Harvard Law Review Should Welcome Free Citation Manual, Not Threaten Lawsuits, Harv. L. Rec., Feb. 12, 2016, https://hlrecord.org/harvard-law-review-should-welcome-free-citation-manual-not-threaten-lawsuits/.

[5] A. Darby Dickerson, An Un-Uniform System of Citation: Surviving with the New Bluebook, 26 Stetson L. Rev. 53, 58 (1996).

[6] Daniel Stone, Harvard-led Citation Cartel Rakes in Millions from Bluebook Manual Monopoly, Masks Profits, Substack (June 9, 2022), https://danielstone.substack.com/p/legal-bluebook-profits-havard-yale-columbia-penn.

[7] Shapiro, supra note 3, at 1585.

[8] Posner, The Bluebook Blues, supra note 2, at 859-61.

[9] Id. at 860.

[10] Albert, supra note 4.

[11] Sprigman et al., The Indigo Book: A Manual of Legal Citation, Public Resource (2016).

[12] See e.g., Liberals Who Are Bad At Using Canva v. Federalist Soc’y at UVA Law, 76 U.Va 4 (2023)

[13] Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U.Va 16 (2023) (Lake, C.J., concurring).

Counsel's Counsel: October 18, 2023

Virginia Law Weekly October 18, 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 who took five years off before starting law school. I left my life as a bachelor in New York City working for a major consulting firm to come to Charlottesville. The first few months of law school have been academically fulfilling, but one question continues to pop into my mind: Am I too old for UVA Law?

The average age of the Class of 2026 is twenty-four. Most of my classmates are KJDs with below average social skills as a result of going to college during the pandemic. I don’t know what it means when one classmate tells another who has just aced a cold call that he has “W Rizz.” In between classes, I stand in silence as they talk about different TikTok sounds. The only TikTok sound I’m familiar with is the one my watch makes. When I made this joke recently, one of the KJDs in my section rolled her eyes and told me I was “elderly.”

I feel especially old when I read the weekly Bar Review emails. First, I don’t really understand the jokes. More importantly, am I really expected to dress up in theme every week to go out? Who has a full Gatsby costume laying around? I don’t have extra cash to spend on a new outfit each week; I’m maximizing my savings in a 401k. Bar Review should be about unwinding for the evening after a long week of studying the law, not attending a weekly costume party.

Finally, there is nothing that makes me feel more out of place than carrying a backpack and using a locker. This isn’t high school! I want to fit in with my classmates, but they are just so young. How do I make it through the next three years?

- Already Gone Gray

Answer:

Gone Gray: They say you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, but I’m going to try. Here are some suggestions for getting through the next three years without being called a boomer every week by your younger section mates.

It might feel like you are the oldest person in your 1L section, but you certainly aren’t the oldest person on North Grounds. You don’t need to spend all of your time with the KJDs. First, we have multiple professors here who are octogenarians. Try taking one of them out to lunch on SBA’s dime. You might find the conversation a bit more relatable. If you are looking to hear more cringey dad jokes, there are plenty of younger professors—and even some students—who are fathers.

While you probably thought you were too old to attend a fair, the Student Organization Fair would have been a great opportunity for you to learn about OWLS, the oldest and wisest law students at UVA. If your hair really is already gray, I’m a little surprised they haven’t already recruited you to join their softball team. It isn’t too late to sign up for their listserv. You should be warned though: I’ve heard of twenty-six year-olds attending OWLS events.

I think your complaints regarding Bar Review and the weekly themes are wholly justified. FYC has absolutely taken this too far. Halloween is once a year, not once a week. It is concerning that the 1Ls didn’t get rid of their costume boxes when they graduated college. You can just emulate the current 2Ls and 3Ls, who dress in normal going out attire each week regardless of the proposed theme. Although, if you dress up on theme, you might get a shoutout in your 1L GroupMe.

You are not the first person who has complained to me about wearing a backpack in law school. Luckily, there are other alternatives for you to try. You can use a briefcase, a satchel, or even a male purse. Ultimately, I think most 1Ls, regardless of age, find a backpack is the best way to carry all of those heavy casebooks while providing maximum lumbar support. As someone nearing thirty, I’m sure you can appreciate avoiding lower back pain.

You have come to law school to learn how to be a lawyer. Next summer, you might be getting assignments from associates who are younger than you. A member of Gen Z will likely be telling you what to do one day. If you don’t start to learn their lingo while you are in law school, you are going to be behind in your career. Figure out how to enter your slay era now, and you will be just fine.

- 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: Delaney Toomer '26

Virginia Law Weekly October 18, 2023

Hi Delaney! Thanks for sitting down for this week’s Hot Bench. To start, where are you from, where did you go for undergrad, and what were you up to before heading to law school?

I’m from Columbia, South Carolina. I went to Clemson University—go Tigers! I came straight through from undergrad, and my summer consisted of babysitting, resting, and spending time with family and friends.

Sounds like a super good summer to me! As a South Carolina native and Clemson University alumna, what drew you to Virginia and UVA Law?

I was drawn to the community aspect of UVA. I felt welcomed immediately during Admitted Students’ Weekend, and now that I’m actually here, I see how everyone works together. Law school can be challenging enough, so knowing that there are genuine people in your corner is invaluable. Also, being in South Carolina my entire life, I knew I wanted to step outside of my comfort zone a bit more and experience a different place. I feel that UVA Law is a place where I can continue to grow as a person.

During undergrad, you interned at the South Carolina Office of the Attorney General and the United States Attorney’s Office. Do you view those experiences differently now looking back since starting law school?

I really enjoyed and learned a lot from both experiences. They solidified my interest in working in public service at some point in my career, potentially as a federal prosecutor. I particularly enjoyed the semester I spent in Washington, D.C. at the United States Attorney’s Office because I met some great mentors and got to observe a couple of criminal trials for the first time. Now that I’m a law student, I am able to look back on certain assignments with a different perspective. I see why there was such a focus on proving mental state when assessing culpability. I also see how knowing how to IRAC back then would have probably saved me a bunch of edits on my memos!

I know you have only been living in Charlottesville for a couple months, but so far how are you liking it? Do you have any favorite spots or things to do?

Charlottesville has been great so far—hopefully I’ll be able to cross more things off my list soon! I loved going to the sunset series at Carter Mountain, and I also like the ice cream at Dairy Market. I take a weekly adult ballet class at Charlottesville Ballet studio, which is one of my favorite de-stressors and hobbies. It’s fun to get back into dancing because I didn’t get many opportunities to do so during undergrad!

Time for a little lighting round!

What is your least favorite TikTok trend?

I’m not sure about “least favorite,” but at the moment I’m obsessed with “get ready with me” videos/story times and anything to do with pets!

Favorite Halloween movie?

“Twitches Too,” a Disney and childhood classic. As a twin myself, it’s always been a favorite.

Funniest case you’ve read for class so far, and four-word explanation why?

Christian v. Mattel, Barbie doll was thrown.

---
Interviewed by Ashanti Jones '26

Court of Petty Appeals: Students of UVA Law v. Dean Risa L. Goluboff

Virginia Law Weekly October 6, 2023

Students of UVA Law
v.
Dean Risa L. Goluboff
76 U.Va 5 (2023)

BROWN, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

On Thursday, September 21, Dean Risa Goluboff announced her plans to step down from her role as dean, effective June 30, 2024. In her email to students, Dean Goluboff noted that she will have served eight years as dean by the end of her tenure; she also confirmed that she will continue to teach on the Law School’s faculty for the 2024-25 academic year.

Dean Goluboff’s leadership of this institution deserves a round of applause, and frankly, this Court will be the first to salute her for her work. Because in addition to her impressive management of UVA Law, this Court—under Dean Goluboff’s honorable reign—has had something of a renaissance. During Dean Goluboff’s tenure as dean, this Court’s jurisdiction has exploded:. The pandemic; the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections; increased tensions between jaded 3Ls and gunnery 1Ls.; Tthe list goes on, but one thing is certain—: pettiness has proliferated in the past several years, and this Court has become stronger for it.

So, when petitioners came to this Court seeking an injunction preventing Dean Goluboff from retiring from her position, the decision was a straightforward one. We grant petitioners’ request and hereby indefinitely enjoin respondent from resigning her position as the Law School’s twelfth dean.

I. Jurisdiction

Dean Goluboff assumed office in July 2016. In her time as dean, she led an impressive hiring spree; navigated the Law School’s COVID-19 response; and has focused, to much success, on improving accessibility and inclusivity in the student experience on North Grounds. Now that she plans to return to her teaching role, the search will soon begin to find her successor—who will become the thirteenth (and hopefully not unlucky) dean.

Petitioners are UVA Law students whom have cherished—or, at the very least, tolerated—Dean Goluboff’s leadership. Fearing change, and admiring the accomplishments of the only Law School dean they have ever known, they filed suit here to prevent her from riding off into the sunset and abdicating her position next summer.

Jurisdiction is acceptable here. First, the 1948 Petty Jurisprudence Act § 12 explicitly grants this Court the authority to hear the case. (“This Court shall retain original jurisdiction in all matters involving the dean of the Law School.”) Second, as is well-known by practitioners, this Court retains jurisdiction only over petty complaints. And what could be more petty pettier than hoping to derail the plans of an innocent academic for personal fulfillment? We struggle to imagine it.

II. On the Merits

Mustering together what this Justice remembers off the fly from Torts and Property , permanent injunctive relief is appropriate depending on several factors, including whether (1) compensatory remedies, such as monetary damages, are inaccurate; (2) the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction; and (3) petitioners have suffered an “irreparable injury.”

All three factors weigh in favor of granting injunctive relief. First, no amount of money will be able to compensate petitioners for Dean Goluboff retiring her current role; her full-time return to the classroom seems daunting because I, for one, am terrified of disappointing her during a cold call. Second, the public interest would surely not be dissatisfied by Dean Goluboff remaining in her current position. She has been well-received by alumni, current students, and legal practitioners. Third, petitioners have surely suffered an irreparable injury; the thought of having to stomach countless emails from UVA Law about a new dean upon his or her selection is draining, and frankly, annoying.

The Court today mandates Dean Goluboff rescind her retirement, and that she continue mercifully leading us until the heat destruction of the universe.

Allard, J., concurring in the judgment.

I join the majority because I agree that Dean Goluboff should not be permitted to retire at this time. But I write separately to clarify that, in my opinion, the Dean must petition this Court to determine the lawfulness of her retirement. Until she has done so, she may not retire.

As Justice Brown correctly identifies, the 1948 Petty Jurisprudence Act granted this Court jurisdiction over all matters involving the Dean. It is surely correct to say that the Act confers upon this Court the jurisdiction to hear this case. But as the legislative history of the Act reveals, the law does much more than confer jurisdiction. It was intended to confer a duty on this Court to certify all important administrative decisions of the Law School, to the extent that the Court’s involvement would promote petty sentiment.

Accordingly, I conclude that the Petty Jurisprudence Act, properly interpreted, requires the Ddean to first file a habeas petition, whereafter the Court may decide whether she may lawfully retire. This construction ensures adherence to the legislature’s intent, greater administrative stability, and most of all—more pettiness. By requiring all future deans to petition this Court for approval of their career decisions, we provide this court with ample opportunities for petty slights.

Because Dean Goluboff has not filed any petition seeking our blessing, instead focusing only on responding to the instant litigation, I would enjoin her retirement until such a petition is filed. Then, and only then, may the Dean present her case. It had better be a petty one.

Moore, J., dissenting.

It is not lightly that I dissent from the majority’s opinion mandating that Dean Risa GOLUBLUFF “rescind her retirement.” Like my learned siblings on this bench, I have truly enjoyed my time at UVA Law under Dean GOLUBLUFF, and I cannot imagine UVA Law without her. However, all good things must come to an end, including the Dean’s time with us. Dean GOLUBLUFF will soon set off on her next step in life: running for President of the United States.

It is obvious that Dean GOLUBLUFF intends to run for President as the timing could not be more perfect. By remaining a law school dean she has avoided all the negative attack ads this election cycle. She has studied constitutional law extensively, which will help her as president. She announced plans to retire from her deanship on June 30, 2024, a mere 15 days before the Republican National Convention on July 14 , 2024. It all lines up.

Because the UVA Law student body should be encouraging our first female law school dean to subsequently become the first female POTUS, I respectfully dissent.

Sandu, J., dissenting.

This injunction is nothing more than another case of the patriarchy trying to keep a woman from her career goals. Therefore, I must dissent.

---

Hot Bench: Shunkai Ding

Virginia Law Weekly October 6, 2023

Hi Shunkai! Thanks for joining me for this week’s Hot Bench. I understand that you already have two degrees from UVA. What brought you here for round three?

When I began to consider studying law and investigating law schools, UVA became the first on my list, as I valued the quality of life and community. Having lived here for five years, UVA has become irreplaceable to me as it provides me with a sense of community I have never felt elsewhere.

As the first person in my family to study and live abroad, I was initially overwhelmed by the cultural differences and was struck by a sense of loneliness when I first came to the U.S. for college. UVA allowed me to establish more personal relationships with professors and other students. I had opportunities to have lunch with some of my professors and visit their homes on the weekends. My friends here always invite me to stay and celebrate with their families during the holiday season. I have never felt alone here.

Like I always tell my parents, UVA and Charlottesville are my second hometown, and the people here are also my family. Law school is not easy, and I am glad I can continue my legal education in a place that already feels like home.

And your master’s degree is in statistics, isn’t it? Why are you in law school if you can do math?

I can do math, but I am just not really passionate about it. Math is useful in many ways. I just cannot imagine working all day with only numbers and codes on the screen. It will drive me crazy. So, I decided to be a lawyer who is good at math.

That’s a lot of power for one person. You will be unstoppable. You also lived in Shanghai before coming to UVA, right? Going from one of the world’s most populous cities to a college town of less than 50,000 sounds jarring. How was that transition?

The transition was surprisingly smooth. Shanghai and Charlottesville are indeed very different in terms of population and lifestyle, but I genuinely enjoy this contrast. One of the things I cherish the most is the proximity to nature here, with plenty of outdoor activities I can do with my friends on weekends. In addition, Charlottesville is much less crowded, which I think makes the community more close-knit. When walking down the main street, I can always see people wearing UVA t-shirts or hats. The sense of connection between students and residents is truly heartwarming.

With five years in Charlottesville under your belt, you must have a good sense for the area. Do you have any recommendations or favorite spots around Virginia?

Charlottesville has some great places to eat. For pastries and bread, you can’t go wrong with Cou Cou Rachou and Albemarle Baking Company. Pineapple Thai and Umma’s are definitely two of my favorite Asian food places. Taco Gomez has the BEST tacos in Charlottesville (in my opinion). And I also love Sultan Kebab, Milan, and Bodo’s. The list goes on, and I am still trying to explore something new every week!

Great list. I envy the quality of croissants made at Cou Cou Rachou. Speaking of pastries, the holiday months are fast approaching, which is truly shocking to me. What is your favorite holiday?

Halloween! First, fall is my favorite season. I really enjoy October and November here in Charlottesville when the weather gets cooler, and the leaves turn all yellow. What makes it even more exciting is the tradition of trick-or-treating on the lawn right in the middle of the semester. Puppies and babies in Halloween costumes are just so adorable.

I have not had the pleasure of seeing the costumed parade of puppies and babies. I’ll have to fix that this year. Do you have a costume planned yet for Halloween?

Not yet. I will probably still be on crutches at the time of Halloween, so I am thinking hard about creative ways to incorporate them into my costume.

I’ll be looking forward to seeing what you come up with. What’s something you could talk about uninterrupted for ten minutes?

Probably ballroom dancing? I have been doing ballroom dancing for fifteen years, and I can certainly talk about differences in dance styles, techniques, and share fun stories nonstop for ten minutes, if not more. It is something I take great pride in and enjoy doing in my spare time.

Math, coordination, and law brain? You’re supposed to pick one. Aside from dancing, what do you like to do outside of class to de-stress / procrastinate?

I cook and bake to procrastinate. I have convinced myself that I need to eat well to do well in law school, so I’ll happily justify cooking a large pot of curry or baking a dozen cupcakes when studying. Staying in the kitchen provides me with a great escape from all the readings and ensures that I have something to eat during the week.

100 percent agree on the eating well point. Cooking is the best study break. Do you have any plans for the upcoming long weekend?

I will be staying in Charlottesville for the upcoming fall break. My main plan is to get some good rest. My parents will be in town, so I will spend a lot of time with them. My friends and I are also planning a hotpot party during the break.

Aw, that’s great. I could use some hotpot right now… Alright—lightning round!

Who is your favorite artist?

Leslie Cheung is definitely my favorite.

What’s a trend you wish would go away?

Crocs (especially with socks).

No objection here. What’s your most recently used emoji?

🙊 The speak-no-evil monkey.

A man of culture, I see. If you could bring any fictional character to life, who would it be?

Minions!

Okay, well I’m glad that one is only hypothetical. What’s your preferred room temperature?

74 degrees.

---
tya2us@virginia.edu

Counsel's Counsel: September 27, 2023

Virginia Law Weekly September 29, 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: Over the summer, one of my friends was invited to join VLR. At the time, I was thrilled for my friend. She worked hard last year and deserved to be recognized and rewarded for her success with a spot on VLR. I personally had zero desire to be on VLR. In fact, I quit the Unified Journal Tryout halfway through the weekend.

The problem started soon after we got back to school. A week into the semester, my friend told me about the VLR Outline Bank. I had heard of other organizations having member-only outline banks, like Virginia Law Women and FedSoc. I didn’t realize VLR also had its own outline bank. I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised that year after year, gunners pass down their best outlines to help the next generation.

I asked my friend to send me an outline for Securities Regulation from the outline bank. I explained that I have been confused in class and could really use some extra help. I asked for the outline in a moment of desperation. She seemed sympathetic; we all know SecReg is a challenging class. She told me she would look through the bank and send me an outline.

A week went by and my friend did not send me an outline. I reached out again with a friendly reminder. “Sure, yeah, will do,” she responded. We’re now four weeks into the semester, and I still haven’t gotten the outline. She mentioned something about having to check the Managing Editor’s lengthy “rulebook.” Do I keep asking her to send me a VLR outline? Or should I accept defeat and pay the $10 dues to get access to the FedSoc outline bank?

- Outline or Out of Line

Answer:

Out of Line: I understand why you think you want an outline from the VLR Outline Bank. After all, who wouldn’t want an outline titled “CivPro Outline_GOD,” or a National Security outline with all of the answers to the cold calls already filled in?

Unfortunately, I’m not shocked that someone on VLR wouldn’t send you an outline. VLR doesn’t share their office door or their purified water with VJIL. They didn’t even give their newest editorial board members the latest merch, VLR-embossed Lululemon sweatshirts. A journal that doesn't share these basic necessities of life would never donate a pristinely-formatted Word document with pages of tables reciting the holdings for all of the unassigned notes cases.

The bigger question is: why are you taking SecReg? You clearly aren’t a gunner; you didn’t even make it to the writing component of the journal tryout. Did someone in the transactional group at your law firm tell you during OGI that you need to take the class to succeed in Big Law? I know add-drop has already ended, but you need to get out now.

If it is too late to drop the class, I don’t think your only solution is paying the $10 FedSoc dues. You don’t need FedSoc on your resume—there isn’t a single appellate judge in any of the eleven judicial circuits who is hiring a clerk that didn’t even bother to join a specialty journal. But if you are willing to shell out some cash for an outline, I would suggest paying $14 to access the Virginia Law Women outline bank. (The extra four dollars accounts for the gender pay gap.) You might be a man, but I’m certain that the women of VLW will take pity on you given your desperation.

You can also refocus your efforts on getting an outline from a member of a specialty journal or a different student organization. I can’t imagine someone on VLBR or VJOLT not sharing an outline. The Tax Journal will probably give you an outline and a Spindrift. VELJ will give you an outline as long as you promise to recycle it after finals. Many other student orgs, including SBA and ACS, have free outline banks. While I can’t vouch for the quality of these outlines, something is better than nothing.

I’m sure you’re feeling let down by your friend. You really shouldn’t blame her though. The Managing Editor runs a tight ship out of the new VLR office, and they clearly didn’t include “sharing is caring” on their long list of rules. Good luck finding an outline.

- 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: Liberals Who Are Bad At Using Canva v. The Federalist Society at UVA Law

Virginia Law Weekly September 29, 2023

Liberals Who Are Bad At Using Canva
v.
The Federalist Society at UVA Law
76 U.Va 4 (2023)

Brown, J. delivers the opinion of the court.

Practitioners familiar with the Court of Petty Appeals probably think they’ve seen this case before. Someone suing the Law School’s most prolific—dare I say, notorious—ideological organization? Hardly an hour goes by without someone complaining about something FedSoc does, either loudly in ScoCo or in a public GroupMe chat,[1] so surely, this Court must have some precedent to work with.

Admittedly, this Court has weighed in on suits involving FedSoc before. Oftentimes, these cases are less than flattering. And in these cases, these opinions are frequently written by yours truly. See, e.g., Hungry People v. Law School Student Orgs, 75 U.Va 12 (2022) (Brown, J.) (“I didn’t want to name names, but I’m looking at you, FedSoc.”)

So, setting aside the facts of the present case, followers of the Court would be forgiven for assuming that the die has already been cast with respect to our decision today. A suit against FedSoc? In an opinion written by the Court’s snarkiest[2] and tied-for-gayest[3] justice, who also happens to be such a Hillary Clinton stan that he has a framed print of her in his apartment? Their defeat seems certain.

But, my dear colleagues—this is not that case. The Court, for reasons set forth below, finds for FedSoc.

I. BACKGROUND AND ISSUES PRESENTED

Petitioners are students who care deeply about something most would find easily forgettable: a well-designed event flier.[4] As anyone in a student organization knows, advertising events around the Law School is hell.[5] The worst part of all is having to design the flier itself. There’s a reason people go to law school, and it’s because they lack the requisite creative talent to accomplish such tasks. Or at least, most do.

Inexplicably, one student group in particular—respondent FedSoc—seems to have no problem producing the most immaculately beautiful designs for every single event they host, ones that would positively goop and gag the creators of Canva. These stunning posters infuriate me. Who at this law school has the wherewithal to make such splendors?[6] And why am I not blessed with the same gifts whenever I am forced to feebly make advertisements for my own student organizations, stumbling on Adobe and Canva like a goddamn fool? It just isn’t fair.

And so, petitioners[7]—hoping to deny FedSoc the opportunity to keep producing superior graphic design content—sought injunctive relief in the District Court of Petty Complaints. The District Court granted petitioners’ request, relying heavily on precedent against FedSoc, both in popular Law School lore and in this Court. See Hungry People; National Lawyers Guild v. FedSoc (NLG VII), 61 U.Va 5 (2009). The Circuit Court of Petty Appeals affirmed. We granted certiorari to resolve the underlying issue at hand: Is there ever a petty and/or gossip-scenario in which FedSoc may come out on top?

II. ANALYSIS

The Court reckons with two competing canons in answering the issue presented.

First, there is the oft-repeated refrain that “1Ls always lose.” This is a core value of our jurisprudence. See 2Ls v. 1Ls, 74 U.Va 2 (2021) (Tonseth, C.J., dissenting) (“[T]he implication that 1Ls always lose continues to be the bedrock of this esteemed Court.”) And it is fair to assume that 2Ls and 3Ls, on average, are far less likely to give a sh*t about their involvement in FedSoc than their 1L peers do. See 1L Gunners v. Everyone Else, 324 U.Va. 22 (2019) (noting that 2Ls and 3Ls are more inclined to “lounge around” than do anything remotely related to school). So, taken to its logical conclusion: If those who care most about FedSoc are 1Ls, then the organization must lose too.

But undergirding the Court’s approach towards 1Ls—that they always lose–is the absolute hilarity of doing so. 1Ls’ sisyphean attempts to win in the Court of Petty Appeals are so incredibly entertaining. And that’s why, time and time again, we deny them victory. But this analysis of the “1Ls always lose” doctrine is illustrative for the instant case. If the true purpose of denying 1Ls victory is entertainment, then this Court must ask: What would be the funniestoutcome of the instant case?

The answer is simple: FedSoc winning is clearly funnier. To reward the organization that already has “won” at the Law School in much duller metrics—e.g., clerkship success rates; clout among faculty; being able to bring lawyers from SPLC-designated hate groups to Grounds and getting away with it—is absolutely hysterical. It is the exact sort of perceived “unfairness” among the Law School’s ideological organizations that motivated petitioners’ Complaint to begin with. And denying them relief at the last stage of litigation is, sadly, truly amusing.

III. CONCLUSION

The Court reverses the lower court and remands this case for further proceedings. (AKA–FedSoc, you have to keep producing your beautiful posters, because they are positively entrancing).

Flanagan, J., dissenting.

The majority’s decision today has been poisoned by a misunderstanding at the very root of the case. Petitioners sought the wrong form of injunctive relief when they petitioned the District Court to ban the one-of-a-kind craftsmanship of FedSoc’s Pamphleteer of Unusual Skill (hereafter, the PUS). Thankfully, we have broad authority to craft remedies, even if they surpass the wildest dreams of all parties. See, e..g. Aggrieved 2Ls v. Roots Bowl Thieves, 74 U.Va 11 (2022) (requiring the Roots Bowl thief conglomerate to hand-deliver lunch to their victims, even though plaintiffs only sought financial remuneration). So, it would be within our remit to instead compel the PUS to prepare equally splendorous posters for all student groups who require their creative services.

It is obvious that the PUS has a monopoly power when it comes to an eye for design in the Law School. Petitioners have proffered ample evidence of the Liberals’ inability to choose an appropriately sized font, awkwardly sized graphic art, and low-definition photographs. Introducing such evidence to the record is, perhaps, superfluous: The ubiquity of athleisure, Ruth Bader Ginsburg-themed decor, Madewell jeans, and baseball caps in the Law School stand on their own for the creative leanings of the pre-law community.[8] For PUS to restrict the use of their artistic talents only to FedSoc’s purpose is a vertical alliance which is causing clear anticompetitive harm to the Law School community.

This type of anticompetitive exclusive dealing by the PUS is subject to Rule of Reason analysis. Are there any procompetitive benefits from allowing FedSoc to impair the ability of its rival organizations to draw crowds at their events? None has been introduced into the record, which is probably because no one expected this to become an antitrust case. Ignoring that, however, is consumer welfare maximized by allowing the PUS to churn out merely one piece of craftsmanship a week? Obviously not: it is a well-established principle that “the hallways of the Law School could use more eye candy.” Students v. Dean Blazer, 56 U.Va 21 (2004).

The majority’s point that FedSoc winning is “clearly funnier” is well-taken. But, wouldn’t it be a bit funnier for this Court to run ramshod over recent (disturbing) First Amendment jurisprudence and just force some skilled Republican pamphleteer to prepare dozens of simply perfect posters a day, all in the name of competition?

---
bwj2cw@virginia.edu
cf3tf@virginia.edu

[1] Guilty!

[2] Self-appointed title.

[3] Another self-appointed title I gleefully share with Justice Allard.

[4] You know the ones I’m talking about—the ones that surreptitiously take up space on the little pegboards, in between the 10,000 VLR and VJIL mastheads plastered around the school like war propaganda.

[5] I am 24 years old, and I genuinely do not trust myself to use thumbtacks without injuring myself.

[6] I am informed by Chief Justice Morse that this person actually does exist, and that he’s a 3L. But that kind of defeats the purpose of the article, so the Court will engage in willful blindness here. Hasn’t stopped us before!

[7] Yes, it’s probably clear at this point that “petitioners” really means “me.” But the Court may exercise jurisdiction over cases that include its justices as quasi-parties. See Virginia Journal of International Law v. Virginia Law Review, 76 U.Va 3 (2023) (Sandu, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part) (“Furthermore, this Court’s jurisdiction is over the conflicts and concerns of law students, and what are we if not law students? Must we recuse ourselves entirely from every dispute which reaches our bench?”).

[8] Indeed, one study shows that 67 percent of law students “listening to music” in the library on a given day are actually just listening to white noise. Likewise, when the average law student is asked if they see themselves as “creative,” eight out of ten will begin to describe the “well-crafted brief,” and the other two will mention “stress baking.”

Hot Bench: Professor Xiao Wang

Virginia Law Weekly September 29, 2023

Hello, Professor Wang! Welcome to UVA and thanks for sitting down with the Law Weekly. Although, as I understand it, you went to UVA for undergrad, so this is really more of a welcome back.

Yes, I did go to UVA for undergrad and had a great time here in Charlottesville. In fact, I lived on the Lawn, right near the Rotunda.

As most of us know, you have returned to lead the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. But you also worked in private practice in Washington D.C. for a few years after law school. How did you make the transition from private practice to academia?

I did both trial and appellate work, but I was eager to get more experience as first chair in appellate matters, so over time I sought out more pro bono appellate work. Once I had a few successes, clients would reach out to me, and courts appointed me more regularly without me having to seek out those opportunities as actively. It became clear to me that this was the kind of work I was really interested in devoting myself to long-term, and so I started looking for clinic positions and joined Northwestern to do just that.

You mention that once you had some success in your pro bono work, more of those assignments began to flow your way. Is there any case in particular that you think of as a turning point in that respect?

Yes, there was a case in the Sixth Circuit called United States v. Lee,[1] where I represented a client who was challenging the sentence the district court had imposed as being substantively unreasonable. It is difficult to overstate how rare it is for this kind of a challenge to work. District judges are given a high degree of deference for their exercises of discretion in sentencing. Before I took the case, only about fifteen out of over a million such challenges had succeeded at the federal level. The Sixth Circuit took over a year to decide the case, but our win made it sixteen instead of fifteen.

That’s incredible. Did you consider working for a public interest litigation group, or somewhere that you could do this kind of work other than academia?

I did, but I have also had an interest in conducting research and publishing legal scholarship on issues relevant to appellate litigation. Around the same time as I started to have success in my pro bono appellate work, I was getting published in prominent journals such as the California Law Review Online and Michigan Law Review Online. Being a clinical professor seemed like a natural fit for my desire to keep litigating and pursuing my research.

Well, we are very glad to have you here at UVA Law. What goals do you have for the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic?

Professor Daniel Ortiz did a fantastic job running the SCOTUS clinic here, and it is in a strong position. Building a clinic up to this level takes vision and a lot of hard work. It requires a high level of entrepreneurship and engagement from your professors, students, and staff. My hope is to build on that foundation. First, I hope to continue building out the Appellate Network and leveraging that for our clinic students’ success. Second, I am excited to bring the En Banc Institute to UVA Law. It is a program that helps to prepare attorneys who will be arguing in front of a Circuit Court sitting en banc. That will give clinic students the opportunity to argue against litigators at the highest level of appellate practice. Hopefully, one day we could even host the Fourth Circuit sitting en banc. I don’t think that has ever been done at a law school before, and it would be an incredible experience.

Is there anything you would like to tell students who are interested in both the Appellate Litigation Clinic and the SCOTUS clinic?

To a certain extent, they will flow together. I will work with Scott Ballenger and Cate Stetson closely. In some sense,there is not a bright line between the work you do as a clinic member for one vs. the other. But there are two differences worth mentioning. First, in the SCOTUS clinic, I will be trying some creative ways to find more cases for students to work on. Because the federal government is not appealing cases they have lost below with as much frequency, there is a bit of a void in federal cases the Supreme Court is granting cert on. That is being filled by state cases, a number of them being brought by state solicitors general. We will be looking at ways to get involved in those state cases, which should be exciting. Second, while appellate clinics operate almost as an independent law firm, by the nature of Supreme Court practice we will work with law firm partners who are part of the Supreme Court bar. For example, right now we’re working with Covington and Vinson & Elkins. It helps to have additional voices in the room and makes for an engaging, collaborative process.

Terrific. Alright Professor, now for the lightning round.

Oh boy.

Favorite restaurant in Charlottesville?

Mas. It was the first place I had tapas while I was an undergrad here.

Virginian or Biltmore?

The Virginian always gave off a genteel vibe, while Bilt was more fratty but also more chill. My friends and I mostly hung out at what was then called Buddhist Biker Bar, now Crozet Pizza.

Favorite season?

Chicago: non-winter. Here: right now.

Favorite coffee spot?

Twisted Tea Bazaar.

---
Interviewed by Nikolai Morse ‘24

[1] 974 F.3d 670 (6th Cir. 2020).