Anonymous Stairs Enthusiast
with Elizabeth Patten ’25 and Malia Takei ’25
If tears could build a Stairway
And our memories a lane,
We could walk right up to Slaughter
And climb you once again.
No farewell words were spoken;
No time to say goodbye.
You were gone before we knew it,
And only Dean Dugas knows why.
Our hearts ache in sadness;
Our tears overflow.
The pleasure of walking your stairs,
No 1Ls will ever know.
Law Students
v.
Miller Center
77 U.Va 6 (2024)
Allard, C.J., delivers the opinion of the Court, in which Jones, Demitry, & Coco, JJ., join.
Coleman, J., dissents.
Allard, C.J., delivers the opinion of the Court.
This suit comes before us on appeal from the District Court of Petty Claims. Petitioners, the collective UVA Law student body, sued the Miller Center for failing to advertise Justice Breyer’s talk scheduled for October 17. Relying on our precedent requiring events to remain open to law students, see e.g., Students for Attending Cool Events v. UVA Law Faculty, 76 U.Va 13 (2024) (enjoining the administration from excluding Law Students from events labeled as “open to faculty”), Petitioners argue that the Miller Center’s failure to adequately advertise the event to law students is a public nuisance.
After discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment. The District Court denied both motions, reasoning that a genuine issue of fact remained to be tried—whether any law students genuinely wanted to go in the first place. After a bench trial, the Court found that several law students were likely interested in attending the event and accordingly held the Miller Center liable for their failure to advertise the event. The Miller Center appealed, arguing that the court’s factual finding was clearly erroneous. We agree, and we accordingly reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I
As a threshold matter, we note that this Court has not previously held what standard of review applies to a lower court’s factual findings. Neither party, seemingly assuming that we follow federal practice (we do not), briefed the Court on this matter. Their oversight, while grossly incompetent, is of no import here. We believe that the District Court’s findings would not prevail even under a highly deferential standard of review. Accordingly, we will assume, without deciding, that the standard of review for the District Court’s factual findings is merely reasonableness.[1]
II
Justice Stephen Breyer’s speaking event at the Miller Center is scheduled for October 17. The event was first advertised to the student body in an email from Dean Kendrick, which was sent on September 24. A second university-wide Student Affairs email was sent on September 25. The event was discreetly listed in the middle of other talks at the bottom of the email. By the time the first email from Dean Kendrick was sent, in-person tickets to the event had already been sold out for almost a week. Only online tickets remained, presumably because seats had been meted out to older alumni and eager pre-law undergrads.
The Law Students took great offense to this perceived slight. Petitioners put forth testimony from law students, who generally described disappointment from being able to attend the event only virtually. Several students described feelings of exclusion and shock that law students were not prioritized for the event.
But the Law Students’ testimony did not go unrebutted. On cross-examination, none of Petitioners’ witnesses could recall a single Breyer opinion they had read. One witness even referred to him as “Stefen” Breyer.
The Miller Center also put forth evidence that a majority of law students would not even be in Charlottesville to attend the event. Respondent pointed out that the event is scheduled for the day after Fall Break, noting that the majority of law students take the whole week off instead of returning for Thursday classes. When asked about their travel itineraries for Fall Break, Petitioners’ witnesses claimed that they could not recall them or had not yet made plans.
Further, Respondent introduced evidence, scraped from students’ Instagram posts, that the only law students who had expressed interest in the event had planned to make a drinking game out of it. “Each time Justice Breyer talks about ‘liberty,’ drink. If he makes up a crazy hypothetical unprompted, finish your drink” read one post.
Despite Respondent’s complete takedown of the Law Students’ witnesses, the District Court concluded that it was “reasonably likely that some students would attend the event.” We believe this conclusion is unsupported by the evidence. We believe—and the evidence suggests—that roughly half of the student body will be out of town during Breyer’s visit. The student witnesses’ apparent unfamiliarity with Breyer’s jurisprudence further suggests that even those students who are in Charlottesville are unlikely to attend. And while the drinking game proponents’ mockery of the law is commendable, it contradicts their avowed interest in attending the event. We cannot uphold a decision that so blatantly ignores these facts.
III
While the District Court’s factual finding was patently wrong, we do not believe that is necessarily fatal to the students’ case. It remains to be decided whether the Miller Center has a duty to pander to law students, even if they are unlikely to attend the event. In Students for Attending Cool Events, we held that the Law School could not bar students from attending events that were advertised in The Docket because doing so would be a “bait and switch.” 76 U.Va 13. We believe it likely that the logic of S.A.C.E. applies here because the Breyer event was already sold out by the time it was advertised to law students. Similarly, Petitioners’ public nuisance claim may extend to the Miller Center’s decision to schedule the event for the day after Fall Break. Such inattentiveness to the needs of law students is perfect fodder for this Court.
Ordinarily, we would raise these arguments sua sponte and just rule in favor of the Petitioners. But there is a chance that by drawing out this litigation, the case will become mooted once the event takes place in the next few weeks. And, well, that would be pretty funny.
Accordingly, we reverse the District Court’s holding and remand for further proceedings to determine whether law students need to show a likelihood of attending an event before they can establish standing to sue the event planner.
As an aside, the Law Weekly Editorial Board intervened in this suit, alleging unconstitutional interference with their reporting. They do not need to return to the District Court for reasons we decline to explain. We summarily grant their claims, with damages to be calculated based on the cost of a ticket to Miami during the week of Fall Break.
It is so ordered.
Coleman, J., dissents.
So much of the Chief’s opinion rings true, but he fails in his disposition of the case. The proper remedy is to enjoin the entire event. Upon arrival, Justice Emeritus Breyer should be diverted to the Law School. And the keycard access points should be programmed to shock trespassing undergrads.
The fact that the University would allow pre-law undergrads to attend this event at all is appalling. I hope that Admissions has to read dozens of cringe-inducing personal statements recounting the event. That is what happens when you let those animals loose on legal events.
But the Chief Justice is also wrong on his special ruling in favor of the Law Weekly. These editors lack standing because they can theoretically access all events with the office press pass. While it does bear the name Nikolai Morse ’24, we all remember him as a generic-looking white man and could all impersonate him with a simple vest.
---
tya2us@virgina.edu
jxu6ad@virginia.edu
[1] As a general principle, we believe this Court has no obligation to defer to lesser courts.
2Ls and 3Ls
v.
The Tiny Staircase
77 U.Va 5 (2024)
Allard, C.J., delivers the opinion of the Court, in which Jones, Demitry, & Coco, JJ., join.
Coleman, J., dissents.
Allard, C.J., delivers the opinion of the Court.
This class action tort suit is brought before us by 2Ls and 3Ls who allege that they were falsely imprisoned by the new staircase in Slaughter Hall.[1] Plaintiffs contend that the stairway and doors are too narrow to accommodate the flow of students in between classes. It is so narrow, Plaintiffs claim, that it behaves “basically like a one-way street.” Pls.’ Aff. 1, para. 12.
The Tiny Staircase[2] filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a petty claim. Tiny Staircase argues that no reasonable juror could find that it is too narrow to accommodate the Law School’s traffic. Tiny Staircase also notes that there are multiple access points to the second floor of Slaughter Hall. Tiny Staircase thus argues that, to the extent that there are traffic problems in the Tiny Staircase, Plaintiffs’ injury is self-inflicted, as an obvious alternative remedy exists. Finally, Tiny Staircase argues that Plaintiffs’ false imprisonment claim must fail because they were not completely confined but merely obstructed.
We are unpersuaded by all of Tiny Staircase’s arguments and accordingly deny their motion to dismiss.
I
As we noted in In re Staircase, the lovely original Slaughter Hall stairwell was recently lost to a disgraceful and heinous act of destruction. See The Funding Cases, 77 U.Va 1 (2024) (“Under cover of summer break, the administration laid waste to the elegant and stately passage at the front of Slaughter Hall. In its place is nothing but a Stalinesque wall.”). This Court is committed to vindicating its destruction.
The defendant staircase argues that no reasonable juror would find the Tiny Staircase too narrow. In doing so, Defendant attempts to fit a factual argument into a motion contending legal insufficiency. Such legal sloppiness is only tolerated by this Court when we already agree with the movant. Plaintiffs allege that the doorway is “roughly three feet across.” Pls.’ Aff. 1, para. 5. The average shoulder width of an adult ranges from fourteen to seventeen inches. While two adult individuals thus could fit through the three-foot wide doorway, there is naturally a need for some degree of personal space. The appropriate degree of personal space is a classic reasonableness question that is best reserved for a jury. Accordingly, we believe that the Tiny Staircase’s ability to accommodate Law School traffic is a question best resolved by the jury.
II
We now move to the Tiny Staircase’s argument that the existence of alternative stairwells prevents Plaintiffs from bringing this claim. Tiny Staircase misunderstands Plaintiffs’ argument and this Court’s precedent. Plaintiffs’ theory of harm includes an allegation that the Tiny Staircase slows their travel to and from classes, thus resulting in tardiness. In many instances, alternative stairwells will be an inadequate remedy for this injury due to their location at the far end of Slaughter Hall. The Tiny Staircase is the only access point in the middle of Slaughter Hall.
Regardless, Defendant is foolish to think we would dismiss this case on remedy exhaustion grounds. We balk at such procedural nonsense. We would much rather get to the substance of the case. See PRCP 17(a) (“All procedure and no substance makes the Court write dull opinions.”).
III
Lastly, the Tiny Staircase argues that Plaintiffs have misconstrued the false imprisonment tort. They note that a claim of false imprisonment is made only if the claimant’s “confinement within the boundaries fixed by the actor [is] complete.” Restatement 2d of Torts § 35. Here, Plaintiffs have only argued that they were slowed by the boundaries fixed by the Defendant. Plaintiffs were thus never confined, as a reasonable means of escape was always available to them.
While Tiny Staircase is perhaps correct that the Restatement does not support Plaintiffs’ legal theory, this Court has never let doctrine stand in the way of a good time. We believe that 2Ls and 3Ls, who are very busy golfing and planning how to spend their summer money, may adequately state a claim for false imprisonment if they are merely delayed by a defendant, rather than completely confined. We have no qualms about the potential for this holding to result in a slew of litigation about undue delays. Sounds really petty. We’re into that.
In sum, we find the Tiny Staircase’s arguments unavailing. Accordingly, we shall DENY their motion to dismiss. In the meantime, we encourage Plaintiffs to cook up some arguments that will allow us to order the administration to reinstate the old stairs. Long live Slaughter Hall.
It is so ordered.
Coleman, J., dissenting.
I dissent for two independent reasons. First, 2Ls and 3Ls lack standing based on the pleaded injury. Second, the Tiny Staircase offers some benefits, which I think amount to an affirmative defense to wrongful imprisonment.
With respect to standing, the majority asserts that the plaintiffs are harmed because they are late to class. That is no cognizable injury for upperclassmen! 1L is done for these people. The time for relaxation has arrived. To think that they should be concerned with arriving to class on time is ridiculous. The plaintiffs did also brief on third-party standing through 1Ls, but I find their arguments unconvincing. First, 1Ls rarely have classes in Slaughter. And second, they are free to litigate cases themselves. While they would almost certainly lose, that is not a sufficient bar to the assertion of their rights such that they would need surrogate plaintiffs.
And I would have used our common law powers to create a new affirmative defense for false imprisonment within our jurisdiction: offsetting benefits. It is no secret that this Court is rather blasé when ruling in tort. See Ex parte Undergrad, 77 U.Va. 4 (2024) (“If there is an undergraduate studying in our library, any law student, even a 1L, may imprison him within the Law School . . . .”). So, the concept of an affirmative defense to false imprisonment is nothing too offensive. And the benefits of Tiny Staircase are clear: People have to take things slowly and catch up with their fellow law students while waiting to access the stairs after class. Those little moments are what makes UVA special.
Finally, I would like to devote some space to a public attack on this Court’s Chief Justice (something I expect to see in the coming SCOTUS terms). This entire opinion is based on an idea that I already had and already wrote on. See In re Staircase. Not only is this joke theft, but it is redundant within the Law Weekly’s 77th edition. This malicious yet incompetent incident is perfectly consistent with the Chief Justice’s tenure.
---
tya2us@virgina.edu
jxu6ad@virginia.edu
[1] Plaintiffs did not admit 1Ls to the class because, they explain, they were concerned that the inclusion of 1Ls could lead to an adverse ruling. See Liberals Who Are Bad at Using Canva v. Federalist Society at UVA Law, 76 U.Va 4 (2023) (“1Ls always lose.”). We applaud their wise decision.
[2] Attorneys’ for the Tiny Staircase strenuously objected to us referring to their client as “Tiny Staircase” and asked that we instead use “Mx. Slaughter Stairwell.” Defendant’s request is (obviously) denied. See PRCP 1 (“We do what we want.”); PRCP 3 (“The funniest outcome must necessarily prevail”).
Hi Alex! Thank you for joining us for Hot Bench this week. To start us off, can you tell us a bit about yourself—where you’re from, what year you are, all that good stuff.
I am a 2L from Seattle, Washington by way of London, England. That’s the skinny version of that
You’re not going to mention New York and California ties?
Go Bears, I went to UC Berkeley, so four years in the Bay. Four years in New York, was born in New Jersey but we’re not going to talk about that one.
Wait, I didn’t know that—this is a new Alex tidbit I’m learning. How has 2L been treating you?
2L has been good. 2L has been a lot more relaxing because I know the pace of everything. It has definitely been nice after a summer away to see some friends, like Ashanti.
Aww too kind, do you want to plug your softball team?
Ooh yea, got a great team going, Slug Slug Goose. We’re flying high this semester, we’re going for the championship this year.
Do you guys think you’re going to bring it home?
Definitely going to bring it home, zero doubt.
Okay, we’ll have to do a check-in post-season interview. How was your summer—where were you, what were you up to?
Summer was great. I managed to put 6,000 miles on my car in less than two months. I was between Charlottesville, Richmond, and Washington D.C. I was working at the Virginia Office of the Attorney General in Richmond. I love it in Virginia, and I want to stay in Virginia, so it was nice to serve the Commonwealth for a bit, and Richmond is a cool city. With all the craziness of recruiting, I was up in D.C. a lot and I met my girlfriend up there, so I was there for her too. Then, I came back to Charlottesville to visit.
Have you gotten an oil change yet? It sounds like you need one. Do you know where you’re going next summer?
No, I have not, I should though. Also, to add I really liked Richmond even though someone warned me about Richmond—
I think I gave appropriate warnings.[1]
And I am going to Latham & Watkins in D.C. to do litigation work next summer.
Are you excited?
I’m super excited. I got the chance to meet a ton of Latham attorneys over the school year and I really liked the people and the office culture from my conversations. They are also an international firm, which was really key for me. I am very excited to go to D.C.
Have you found housing in D.C. yet?
No, just starting to figure that out. I’m trying to secure a roommate for next summer right now.
Best of luck with the housing search! For our 1L readers, what is one piece of advice you wished you had 1L fall?
Trust yourself before you trust anyone else. You’re going to have a hundred people trying to give you advice, but you know what works for you in terms of studying and healthy habits, so just have belief in yourself that everything will work out. Just maintain whatever routine or positive habits you already have going, and the rest will follow.
I think that’s very nice and very true. Okay, now a lighting round. I’m going to do a little fall edition. Chili with beans or without?
I don’t like chili generally.
Ooh, hot take! Football or no football?
The real football, as in soccer. Otherwise, go Hawks.
What is your favorite fall snack?
I have to be honest; I do like a pumpkin spice latte.
Those are good, I don’t understand the hate. What’s the superior fall holiday—Halloween or Thanksgiving?
Thanksgiving, Halloween is for heathens.
Do you have your Halloween costume yet?
One is in the works, stay tuned.
---
Interviewed by: : Ashanti Jones ’26
[1] I’m from the Richmond area, so this is not Richmond slander.
Ex Parte Undergrad
77 U.Va 4 (2024)
Coleman, J., delivers the opinion of the Court, in which Coco, Jones, Demitry, & Allard, JJ., join.
Allard, C.J., concurs.
Coleman, J., delivers the opinion of the Court.
This Court has been asked to grant a writ of habeas corpus to the undergraduate student who is currently imprisoned in the Law Weekly office. We decline to offer him any relief and accordingly uphold the constitutionality of his confinement. If there is an undergraduate student studying in our library, any law student, even a 1L, may imprison him within the Law School until an Honor tribunal is prepared to hear his case.
I
This case began on a calm Sunday evening. The library was packed with nervous 1Ls who were working furiously. But something seemed off at one of the tables in the gunner pit. Four younger-looking students were giggling, and they looked suspiciously happy. So, one member of the Law Weekly staff and current 1L, who shall remain nameless, approached the table to gather more information. But she was taken aback by the screens in front of her. They were all studying anatomy, a subject that no self-respecting law student would ever engage with. Shouting ensued. Weapons were drawn. And amid the chaos, the Law Weekly reporter was able to subdue and hog-tie one of the undergraduates. She then dragged him back and handcuffed him to the refrigerator in the Law Weekly office, where he has remained since.
Subsisting on nothing but leftover pizza and beer, this undergraduate student learned enough to file this habeas petition. He seeks immediate relief from his unlawful detention. He claims that he is not a flight risk, and has been so traumatized by his experience in the Law School that he will never again step foot on North Grounds.
II
This case forces us to deal with an issue of first impression in this Court. What rights does an undergrad have in relation to the lowly 1L? It goes without saying that 1Ls always lose. See, e.g., Virginia v. Harvard L. Rev. Ass’n, 76 U.Va 4 (2023) (“1Ls must always lose.”); see also Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U.Va 16 (2023) (Lake, C.J., concurring) (“1Ls may have rights when it is funnier for them to win . . . .”). But as far as the clerks of this Court are aware, that principle is only promulgated in cases where 1Ls are pitted against 2Ls or 3Ls. Surely, the rights calculus must change when the adverse party has not even taken the LSAT.
This Court is of the opinion that our jurisprudence must give way to evolving circumstances. The law of the land is that 1Ls always lose when they assert rights against more advanced law students. We are not unaware of the arguments against this. At the beginning of their studies, 1Ls are little more than undergrads. They often exhibit the same personal foibles common to undergrads. But the key difference is that they have successfully taken the LSAT, thereby demonstrating some potential for the legal reasoning that differentiates us from the laity.
III
While this new articulation of the 1L rule establishes a massive presumption against granting this writ, there is still work to be done on the merits. It is still conceivable that it is funnier for the undergraduate to win.
The petitioner alleges that this confinement violates his rights to substantive and procedural due process. While The Constitution does not govern our petty jurisdiction, we are bound by substantive honor analysis. See Students for Fair Socialization v. Student Bar Association, 76 U.Va. 2 (2023) (“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.”). The petitioner contends that the basic right to liberty is protected by substantive honor because it is not addressed in the three pillars of the Honor Code. But this argument is unavailing.
The Honor Code expressly prohibits stealing. The use of space in our Law School by uninvited third parties is a form of stealing. Therefore, no right of the undergraduate captive was violated when he was taken to the Law Weekly office, in the same way that no right is violated when a murderer is arrested by the police.
There is a final question as to whether the 1L was the proper authority to arrest this undergrad. Based on this Court’s recent holding in ASSES, regular law students have the power to enforce criminal provisions. Aggrieved Students Seeking E-Mail Solutions v. Univ. of Virginia Information Technology Services, 77 U.Va. 3 (2024) (“[W]e believe [that allowing private criminal enforcement] is consistent with this Court’s commitment to vindicating the public’s petty disputes.”). Following this precedent, there is no question that a law student can take petty enforcement into her own hands.
The undergrads lose on the merits. The undergrads lose on humor. They have failed in every respect to rebut the presumption against them, even when facing a 1L captor. Law students may detain undergrads with impunity before their Honor trials when they trespass on North Grounds. However, the 1L must be transferred to the proper Honor authorities when it is time for a full adjudication, in the interest of comity with the larger institution.
This petition for the writ of habeas corpus is hereby DENIED. Costs are awarded to the 1L respondent.
Allard, C.J., concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court because it correctly holds that law students—including 1Ls—may arrest undergraduates trespassing on North Grounds. As the majority ably explains, our decision in ASSES enables law students to enforce the Honor Code against undergrads. This result is also consistent with this Court’s commitment to the bit. See Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U.Va 16 (2023) (Lake, C.J., concurring) (“There is nothing more vital to the exercise of justice than committing to the bit.”). Pitting the 1Ls—no doubt chomping at the bit to try out this “law stuff” they’re learning about—against undergraduate interlopers is priceless.
But I would go further and hold that undergraduate students do not have standing to bring a habeas petition in the first place. “Oh, but Mr. Chief Justice Allard, that issue wasn’t briefed by either of the parties!!” God my clerks are annoying. Who hired you anyway?
The Court of Petty Appeals is not bound by such impotent philosophies as “judicial restraint.” Instead, the Court should answer the question we were all thinking: Do undergraduates possess any rights that law students are bound to respect? The answer is surely no. This Court has previously described undergraduates as “bad,” Class of 2021 v. Doe, 903 U.Va 12 (2018) (Schmalzl, J., concurring), “annoying,” Remote Students v. Student Records, 73 U.Va 11 (2020) (citing Annoyer), and disease-spreading, Law Students for Fall Break v. The Law School, 73 U.Va 7 (2020). Should this Court be an open forum to such individuals? You be the judge. Just kidding, I’m the judge. And I say no.
I would hold that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is permanently and inherently suspended as to undergraduate students. If someday, a case arises where it would be exceptionally funny to grant a victory to an undergrad, perhaps we will hear their arguments. But we need not do so here.
---
jxu6ad@virginia.edu
Good morning, Professor Abrokwa. Thank you for taking the time to talk with me today! We’re excited to have you join the UVA Law faculty, and I’m very much enjoying your class thus far. Maybe we can start with a little bit about where you’re from and how you are liking Charlottesville so far.
Yeah, so I’ve been living in DC for the past ten years. I went there because I knew it would be a good place to practice public interest work, so I spent the time at various nonprofits and at the federal government. I’ve worked at the Department of Justice in the past, and most recently I was coming from the Department of Education, all doing civil rights work. Before that, I lived in Richmond, and people told me to expect Charlottesville to be a little like Richmond which has been the case so far. I grew up in a pretty small college town too, so there’s a lot that’s familiar to me here from my life growing up.
I saw that you were previously a fellow with the Harvard Law School Project on Disability and a senior counsel at the U.S. Department of Education. Can you tell us a little more about those past work experiences?
The fellowship was really my own research and engagement with other scholars around disability civil rights issues. My work at the Department of Education was on education civil rights, but most of that looked like disability civil rights too. My first job after clerking was focused on children with mental health disabilities, making sure they had the support they needed to do well in school and that they had home and community-based mental health care. So, most of my expertise has been focused on children with disabilities. I did that work at the Department of Education most recently working on drafting regulations. The Department’s regulations that protect students from disability discrimination haven’t been updated in a generation, so I spent a long time working on those regs and then separately my own scholarship through the program with Harvard.
What inspired you to transition from practicing to teaching?
I knew I liked the kind of writing you get to do as a scholar. When you write as a lawyer for a client or even a government agency, it’s not your voice, it’s not your perspective, but when you engage in legal scholarship you get to articulate your own views. They don’t have to be tied to particular facts, they don’t have to be within the limits of what makes sense for your case or the jurisdiction of the office that you work in. I found it really liberating to think through legal questions and problems that maybe don’t often arise in practice but are still interesting to me. I’ve also lectured over the years at various law schools in the D.C. area and had a lot of fun meeting with students in that capacity. Lastly, I’ve done all public interest since I graduated law school and there’s a strong pay-it-forward mentality. I benefited a lot from people who were willing to give me career advice, and I spent a lot of my time out of law school giving advice to law students or recent grads. So, I just had the realization at some point that being a law professor combines everything that I already know I like: the scholarship piece, mentoring and advising students, and the actual teaching part has been really fun.
Speaking of advising, do you have any advice for students who are interested in a career in public service?
I think the number one concern I’ve heard from people is that it’s hard to get a job in public interest and also manage your loans. That’s a real consideration for a lot of people. I participated in public service loan forgiveness programs, both at my law school and the federal program. I wouldn’t have been able to do public interest if it hadn’t been for those programs. I was able to do fellowships at non-profits that wouldn’t have had the money on their own to pay my salary. So that’s a realistic option, and I hope that people consider it. The other thing that I will say is you can still do work that serves the public from a firm. There are lots of smaller law firms in the DC area that have civil rights practices and they’re really robust. A lot of them are staffed by people who were former government attorneys, civil rights attorneys, defenders, and prosecutors, so if you want to do that kind of work you can do that at a firm too. The last option I’d say is government lawyering positions. They can be a bit more stable, they pay a little bit better than some nonprofits, and a lot of states have honors attorneys programs. So, don’t be discouraged if you are worried about paying for your loans or finances in pursuing public interest. There are ways to make it happen!
You mentioned that you are teaching a course called Pain and the Law in the spring. Can you give a sneak peek at some of the topics that will be discussed in the course?
The idea behind the Pain and the Law class is to think about different contexts where the law regulates the experience of pain. There are some contexts where the law authorizes the infliction of pain on someone else. Coming from the school and health perspective that I do, you could think about restraint or seclusion of the student or corporal punishment as an infliction of pain, but there are also plenty of examples in the criminal legal context too. So, the law allows the infliction of pain in one context, but also creates a remedy for the experience of pain, like pain and suffering damages or reparations. The idea behind the class is to tease out what the law does with pain when it forces someone to endure it and authorizes that infliction, and when it creates a remedy for it.
---
Interviewed by Alicia Kaufmann '27
Aggrieved Students Seeking E-mail Solutions
v.
University of Virginia Information Technology Services
77 U.Va 3 (2024)
Allard, C.J., delivers the opinion of the court, in which Coco, Jones, & Demitry, JJ., join.
Coleman & Allen, JJ., dissent.
Allard, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.
Factual Background
UVA Information Technology Services (“ITS”) appealed a criminal conviction from the District Court of Petty Complaints for violation of the Comstock Act. ITS was convicted under charges brought by a private group of students, Aggrieved Students Seeking E-mail Solutions (“ASSES”). ASSES pressed charges against ITS under the theory that the “randomly-generated” usernames that ITS assigned them were obscene and that by sending students their IDs via email, ITS had violated the Comstock Act. This Court, having the utmost dignity, will not reprint the foul usernames at issue in the pages of its reports.[1]
The district court found ITS guilty on all counts, noting that ASSES’s first impressions in emails to professors and future employers were irreversibly tainted by ITS’s offense. ITS now appeals the lower court’s conviction on three grounds: that private prosecutions are unlawful and prejudicial; that the Comstock Act is void under the vagueness doctrine; and that the usernames are randomly-generated and not obscene.
I
We begin with the propriety of ASSES, a private party, initiating a criminal action. ITS objects that private prosecutions are unlawful, procedurally unfair, and prejudicial to the defendant. ITS filed a motion to dismiss the criminal charges on these grounds in the lower court and appeals that motion now.
Firstly, ITS errs in bringing a procedural argument before this Court. As experienced petty practitioners know: “We do what we want.” PRCP 1. But, whatever, we’ll throw you a bone.
ITS correctly notes that private prosecutions have been barred by federal law for decades. See Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973). But the Court of Petty Appeals is not bound by the holdings of lesser federal jurists. Moreover, Linda R.S. is inapplicable here. The Comstock Act at issue in this case is not a federal law; it is an identical law adopted by the Petty Congress.[2]
Accordingly, whether private individuals have standing to bring a criminal action is an issue of first impression for this Court. Though defendant ITS characterizes private prosecutions as procedurally unfair and prejudicial, several U.S. states still allow private citizens a limited right to initiate prosecutions. See, e.g., State v. Murphy, 99 Idaho 511, 584 P.2d 1236 (1978). Though these states appear to be a minority, we believe their approach is consistent with this Court’s commitment to vindicating the public’s petty disputes. See PRCP 8 (“The more, the pettier.”). Accordingly, we find that the district court did not err in denying ITS’s motion to dismiss.
II
We now turn to ITS’s challenge under the vagueness doctrine. The federal Comstock Act, upon which the petty Comstock Act is modeled, has repeatedly survived challenges on vagueness grounds. See Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 97 S. Ct. 1756, 52 L. Ed. 2d 324 (1977). The relevant language of the Comstock Act is as follows:
“Whoever . . . knowingly uses any express company or other common carrier . . . for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce . . . any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy . . . writing . . . [s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both . . . .”
In other words, don’t mail anything that a judge or jury might think is “obscene.” How much clearer could it be? Can’t you read?
III
Lastly, we turn to ITS’s argument that because the usernames are randomly-generated, ITS lacked the requisite “knowledge of the contents” of the obscene material. Hamling, 418 U.S. at 121. In the alternative, ITS argues that the usernames at issue are not obscene.
We find ITS’s arguments unavailing. Firstly, their claim that the usernames were merely random accidents is contradicted by an email exchange in which an ITS representative acknowledged to an aggrieved student: “Oh yeah, we noticed that and figured it’d be OK.” ITS cannot now claim it was unaware of the username’s character, even if it was randomly generated.
As to the issue of obscenity, we noted at the outset that the usernames at issue are too obscene to dirty the pages of this opinion. And we believe it uncontroversial that these profane usernames “lack[] serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the lower court’s application of the Miller test.
All of ITS’s arguments on appeal fail. We shall again note, as the trial court did, the severe pettiness of ITS’s offense. ASSES, without their consent, were assigned humiliating and demeaning usernames because of ITS’s policy. Such a petty injustice demands restitution, and this Court will grant it. The holding of the District Court is AFFIRMED.
Coleman, J., dissenting.
My disagreement is categorical. Therefore, I dissent from each part of Chief Justice Allard’s opinion, and provide my takedowns in the same order. The Court today holds that 1Ls with humorous emails are entitled to justice, in plain contravention of bedrock precedent. See Law Weekly v. Swarm of Murderous Bees, 77 U.Va. 2 (2024) (noting “this Court’s repeated holding that 1Ls always lose”). It has contradicted Pet. R. Civ. P. 3 (“The funniest outcome must necessarily prevail.”). And it has revived obscenity law from an era in which Supreme Court justices would have to watch pornography together. See Katie Zezima, Why Ted Cruz Watched Pornography with Supreme Court Justices, Wash. Post, (June 29, 2015) (“Oh my.”). Living up to the name of this institution, the Chief Justice has fashioned himself a petty tyrant.
I
The Chief Justice begins his opinion with the notion that private citizens can bring criminal actions in this Court. Perhaps that could be true in the abstract, but petitioner has not come close to exhausting its remedies. Where was the suit asking for injunctive relief against the school officials? Where was the suit asking for monetary damages from the negative employer reactions? Because of this opinion, every new petty plaintiff will append criminal charges to their already-bloated complaints. And given that the Chief Justice and I already write half of this paper, we do not need more work.
II
Perhaps the most concerning element of Chief Justice Allard’s opinion is his reliance on the Comstock Act. In line with his ultra-conservative colleagues, the Chief Justice is trying to revive this dormant federal statute to limit access to medical abortion. See Emily Bazelon, How a 150-Year-Old Law Against Lewdness Became a Key to the Abortion Fight, N.Y. Times (May 16, 2023). He just wants to soft launch it on a case, like this one, that will have broad popular appeal.
The Comstock Act is plainly vague under current federal precedent. “It is established that a law fails to meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause if it is so vague and standardless that it leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits.” City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 56 (1999) (citations omitted). How is the ordinary person supposed to know what is considered “filthy” by Victorian standards when I am allowed to attend law school classes in birkenstocks?
Moreover, the Chief Justice fails in statutory interpretation. The law criminalizes the use of a common carrier to transport obscene materials. The 1828 online version of Webster’s dictionary defines “carriage” as: “the act of carrying, bearing, transporting, or conveying; as the carriage of sounds.” Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), https://webstersdictionary1828.com/. So, the law does not criminalize the mode of transportation. What would be criminal is if the emails were used to disseminate lewd content. But the fact that the emails are themselves lewd is no cause for criminal liability.
III
My correct statutory interpretation applies with equal force in this section. But there is the additional issue of the Chief Justice assigning knowledge to an entity based on the statements of a random employee. An analogous concept in securities law is corporate scienter. “Where a defendant is a corporation, this requires pleading facts that give rise to ‘a strong inference that someone whose intent could be imputed to the corporation acted with the requisite scienter.’” Jackson v. Abernathy, 960 F.3d 94, 98 (2d Cir. 2020) (citations omitted). Some random employee does not provide the necessary “connective tissue” to infer that the entire ITS organization should be criminally liable. Id. at 99. Yet another reason why the Chief Justice was drunk when he wrote this opinion.
ITS, you have my sympathy. 1Ls should be forced to apply to jobs with obscene, randomly-generated emails. It is the UVA way.
Allen, J., dissenting
I write in dissent not out of callous disregard for the plight of those who come to this Court for recompense. Instead, the 1Ls in question lack standing because they have suffered no injury fairly traceable to ITS (which they have yet to learn about, in their defense). Rather, they have an alternative remedy readily available to avoid using their perverse emails—an email alias.[3] This allows anyone, not just these unfortunate souls, to create and use an alternative email address rather than that which is assigned to them by default.[4] As such, the continued use of the obscene email addresses is an injury which is purely self-inflicted.
---
cmz4bx@virginia.edu
[1] Okay, maybe just a little. Among the filthy emails were bjs4me and fuc8kw.
[2] With identical case law interpreting it. Please just incorporate this into your belief system.
[3] See UVA Email Aliases, https://virginia.service-now.com/its?id=itsweb_kb_article&sys_id=acad334bdb3ac744f032f1f51d961941.
[4] At least, I think it does. I have vague recollections of looking at this as a 1L, a lifetime ago, and it still seems to exist. No reliance interest can be claimed if I am mistaken, as I have judicial immunity for my statements.
William! Thank you very much for joining me for the Hot Bench this week. It’s really great to have you. So, tell me a little bit about yourself. Where are you from and where did you go to undergrad?
Thank you, Brad! My name is William Lee. I was born and raised in Anchorage, Alaska and I went to the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor for undergrad, as well as a master’s degree. I’ve progressively kept moving a little further east and a little further south.
You’ve started the great crescent of migration . . . what did you study at Michigan?
My undergrad was a Bachelor of Business Administration, and I followed that up with a Master of Accounting at the same institution. I learned the nuts and bolts of financial and tax accounting, as well as gained an introduction to operations, to finance, and to business law. This helped drive my decision to come to law school—to learn the interplay between law and business and to find my place in it.
That’s good stuff. What compelled you to leave Alaska and head to the great state of Michigan?
Alaska has several good local schools, but I always knew in my heart that I wanted to leave and go see the country, meet people from across the United States. I applied everywhere, coast to coast and a lot of places in between. I had never even been to the Midwest before I signed the offer to go to Michigan. They had people from all fifty states, and it felt like a place where I could thrive. It felt right in my heart to say Go Blue.
We’re in the same section, and your introductory “fun fact” was that through Alaska public schools, you participated in extracurricular competitive miming. Can you tell me a little about that?
Sure! I competed and performed as a mime for three years in High School. Alaska is the only state that has pantomime as an event competition. We have long winters, and mime was a great way to tell stories during the months of darkness. I was a member of the debate team, and drama events were incorporated into the same tournaments, as we’re a smaller community, so initially it was a way for me to fill time between debate rounds. But I connected with the art form and found two other guys to mime with, and together we performed awesome stories, such as a bank robbery with a car chase. It was a lot of fun!
OK, now the lightning round! What is your perfect weekend?
My perfect weekend starts with a board game night. I like to meet my friends outside of class, play some cards, play some Settlers of Catan. I’d like to follow it up with a local hike, maybe in Shenandoah. I think time outdoors helps ground us. And then I like to start Sunday with a great brunch. Nothing is better than black coffee and an omelet in my eyes, best accompanied with the local paper, the Virginia Law Weekly.
Ha, thanks for the plug! What’s a movie adaptation they haven’t made yet, but you want to see?
Now that is a fascinating question. I really enjoyed a fantasy series known as The Dresden Files. It’s about a detective wizard in modern-day Chicago who solves cases and makes an impact on both magical and non-magical communities. I came across it when I was getting back into reading for fun during the Covid years of college. It brought me joy and showed me how unconventional thinking and magical intuition can help people with real-world problems.
I also read The Dresden Files. I would love an adaptation of that. Which piece of public art at the Law School is your favorite?
My favorite piece is the big painting with the sheep on it [Follow the Leader by John Borden Evans, in Brown Hall]. I like its natural beauty, and I think it helps us question whether we too are sheep.
Very philosophical, I like that answer! OK, last question. What is your favorite experience at the Law School so far?
I’ve loved pretty much every second of it. I think probably the first weekend. We’d had three days of classes, and that Friday I had four of my section mates over at my apartment, and we were playing euchre. After six years in the Midwest, I wanted to kick back, play some cards, and make new friends. And when we were in between hands, I remember thinking, “We’ve got three full years ahead of us. I can’t believe we’re in Virginia. It’s such a privilege to be here.” In that moment I felt right in my decision to come here, and that these are going to be lasting friendships and relationships. It’s an awesome thing to experience.
---
Interviewed by Brad Berklich '27
Law Weekly
v.
The Swarm of Murderous Bees, et al.
77 U.Va 2 (2024)
Allard, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.
Since the first human emerged from a damp cavern thousands of years ago, our species has warred with the many beasts and pests with whom we share the Earth. Most often, these wars were waged in nature—in the forest, atop a mountain, at sea. Today, we find ourselves in a very different venue: the courtroom.
Factual Background
This case comes before us after several 1Ls sued the Law Weekly in negligence for injuries sustained from bee stings while visiting their table at the Student Activities Fair. Pursuant to Petty Rule of Civil Procedure 5, the Law Weekly responded with an even pettier crossclaim against the Bees, alleging trespass, assault, conversion, and apian malpractice.
The undisputed facts of the case are as follows. Last Friday, August 30, Noah Coco ’26 and Andrew Allard ’25 hosted a table at the Student Activities Fair as agents of the Law Weekly. Out of the kindness of their hearts—and, allegedly, desperation for new writers and editors—they offered free ice cream and root beer to all students visiting their stand. The resulting abundance of sugar attracted a swarm of dozens of bees, which descended upon the Law Weekly’s table. Several students were stung, and Noah and Andrew’s presentation on the merits of writing for the Law Weekly was interrupted.[1] This case followed.
Legal Analysis
I
We begin with the 1Ls’ negligence claim. The 1Ls allege that, in offering such sugary treats, the Law Weekly breached its duty of care toward students visiting their table. Having not completed more than two weeks of torts, the 1Ls reasoned that the arrival of the Bees was reasonably foreseeable, and the Law Weekly’s failure to alert students to the risk of bee stings constitutes actionable negligence.
The Law Weekly did not dispute the allegations of negligence and instead moved to dismiss the suit, relying on this Court’s repeated holding that 1Ls always lose. See, e.g., Virginia v. Harvard L. Rev. Ass’n, 76 U.Va 4 (2023) (“1Ls must always lose.”); Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U.Va 16 (2023) (Lake, C.J., concurring) (“1Ls may have rights when it is funnier for them to win . . . .”). In response, the 1Ls protest that some LL.M. students also visited the Law Weekly’s table.
Impressively, the 1Ls have raised an issue of first impression—we have never decided whether the rule that 1Ls must always lose extends to LL.M. students. Nevertheless, we decline to decide the issue in the instant case. As the Law Weekly correctly noted, no LL.M. students joined the litigation brought by the 1Ls, so the complaint may properly be dismissed under the existing rule. We also prefer this holding as it does not require us to re-open our Torts notes. The 1Ls’ negligence claim is accordingly dismissed.
II
We now move to the Law Weekly’s crossclaims against the Bees. Students of history will surely note that this is not the first case of human-against-bee litigation. But unlike the infamous class action suit from the film which shall remain unnamed, this time,[2] those stinging bastards are not going to win.
The Law Weekly relies on several theories of harm, including trespass, assault, conversion, and malpractice. The Bees, appearing pro se, responded “Bzzzzz bzz buzz buzz bzzzzzz bzz.” The Court was unable to identify a translator for the Bees, and accordingly allowed the Law Weekly to proceed in a quasi-ex parte proceeding. At the closing of argument, the Law Weekly moved for summary judgment on all claims. We assume, based on their angry flight patterns, that the Bees likewise moved for summary judgment.
Beginning with the trespass claim, we are unpersuaded by the Law Weekly’s arguments. Much as they may wish otherwise, the Law Weekly holds no property rights over Spies Garden, and they did not acquire one by simply propping up a folding table. The Law Weekly thus lacks standing to bring this trespass claim. Even if the Law Weekly could plausibly claim a right to exclude others from Spies Garden, the Court notes sua sponte that the Bees have a plausible “I’m not touching you” defense, as they never landed on the Law Weekly’s table. We believe that the Bees are—at best—a nuisance. Accordingly, we find in the Bees’ favor as to the Law Weekly’s trespass claim.
Secondly, turning to the alleged assault, we hold that the Bees are liable. The Law Weekly presented overwhelming evidence to support their assault claim, including testimony from the 1Ls that Andrew and Noah’s pitch for the paper became “bumbling and a little Seinfeldian” as a result of the swarming Bees. While neither Andrew nor Noah were stung by the Bees, the Court notes that the “I’m not touching you” defense does not extend to assault; the “imminent apprehension” of “harmful or offensive contact” is sufficient to sustain an assault claim. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 21. While it is unclear whether the Bees are capable of the requisite intent to support an assault claim, we take their presence before the Court as sufficient evidence of their sentience.[3] The Law Weekly’s motion for summary judgment as to the assault claim is accordingly granted.
Thirdly, we move to the conversion claim. The Law Weekly alleges that the Bees unlawfully took sugar from their snacks with the intent to regurgitate it to produce honey. While we believe that the Law Weekly has sufficiently alleged the elements of a conversion claim, the Court notes—again sua sponte—that bees collectively hold an easement by prescription against humanity for the use of their sugar in honey production. Bees have been at it since at least 7,000 B.C. See Honey Ass’n, A Brief History of Honey (accessed Sep. 2, 2024). We believe their open and adverse collection of sugary chattels for the past few millennia is sufficient to overcome the Law Weekly’s conversion claim.
Lastly, we examine the Law Weekly’s claim for apian malpractice. Actually, no we don’t. Seriously? They’re bees. They like sugar. It’s what they do. Be glad they didn’t sting you.
The 1Ls’ claims are accordingly DISMISSED, and the Law Weekly’s claims are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court will hear arguments as to damages in a subsequent hearing to be scheduled. So ordered.
---
Hi Adam, welcome to Hot Bench! Thanks for being here today. Let’s start with an introduction—tell us where you’re from and where you went for undergrad.
Thanks for having me! I was born and raised in Maryland and am a product of Baltimore County Public Schools. My parents were high school sweethearts who, like my siblings and I, graduated from Dulaney High School in Timonium, Maryland. It was a great place to grow up, and my entire family still lives in the area to this day. Based on all of that, the University of Maryland was a natural fit for me, and I absolutely loved my time there as an undergrad. In my family, I am the oldest of my generation, and since I attended UMD, one of my siblings and four of my cousins have followed suit.
A family of Marylanders! And now you’re at UVA. Oh, how the turns have tabled. So what did you study at UMD? Did you always have your sights on law school?
I have always loved math and science, so I came into college hoping to major in some type of engineering. Eventually, I settled on materials science and engineering, which gave me the opportunity to learn about cutting-edge technology related to things like energy storage and nuclear power. As much as I loved learning about these areas, I knew that a career in engineering was not for me, so I decided to work as a management consultant in Washington, D.C., after college. There are no lawyers in my family, and I did not even consider applying to law school until I had worked for a couple years and was ready for a career shift. Eventually, I realized that I wanted to position myself at the intersection of technology, policy, and business. The law is fundamental to each of those areas so I decided to take a chance and apply to law school to see where that would lead me. It was, I think, the best decision I could have made, and I have absolutely loved my time so far in law school.
That’s a really unique combination—and one that has been especially relevant during our time in law school! What role do you think technology will play in the future of the legal profession?
Technology has always played a role in the law, but I believe that this connection will only become more apparent and more critical in the coming years. The legal profession will need to keep up with new and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, which present enormous potential for innovation but also pose serious risks in areas such as individual privacy. These same technologies will likely have enormous implications on how the law itself is practiced, particularly when it comes to things like legal research. I think it will be crucial for new lawyers to have a strong understanding of both the underlying legal concepts and the new technologies that will one day become standard in every industry. I also believe that these new technologies will have big implications with respect to law firms’ business models and the role of younger associates.
I’m sure it will mean fewer billable hours for us… right? Where did your unique background lead you to this past summer?
This summer, I interned for the Office of General Counsel at the U.S. Department of Defense. Through this internship, I had the opportunity to complete research assignments for current cases, sit in on depositions, and explore the Pentagon. I had an amazing group of fellow interns, and our internship program coordinators set up field trips for us around the DMV including to military bases in the area, the Supreme Court, and the White House. I would highly recommend this internship to all 1Ls interested in national security or government work, even if (like me) you intend to work at a firm after graduating.
What are you most excited about as you begin your second fall semester at the Law School?
I am excited to work with Professor Ware as an LRW fellow and hope to use this as an opportunity to get to know some of the 1Ls and provide them with feedback that will help them in the class and help them to build skills that they can take to their internships this summer. I am also looking forward this semester to taking classes with two professors I really enjoyed having as a 1L (shoutout to Professors Nachbar and Gulati). Outside of class, I am excited to play poker and softball.
Oh wow, that’s two Ware fellows on Hot Bench in a row. Maybe I’ll go for a hat trick… Okay, lightning round! What’s your favorite season?
That’s a tough one, but I’m going to go with fall. The weather is nice enough to enjoy being outside (at least most days) and there is plenty of football and baseball to watch.
Agreed, fall is the best! Which of the hominids would you most like to have a beer with?
I would have a beer with someone whose upbringing in Baltimore has shaped her career and whose career in Congress has been one of the most consequential in history. That person is Nancy Pelosi.
Hm… I was looking for “the humble orangutan,” but that answer works, too. What’s your go-to for a quick, cheap meal?
I live in the Pavilion, so when I want to grab a quick meal with friends, Sedona is always a solid option.
Great beer selection—look out for the Smuttynose on your next visit. What’s at the top of your travel bucket list?
Earlier this summer, I traveled to Italy for the first time and absolutely loved it. I would love to get back to the Mediterranean and would have to say that Greece is at the top of my bucket list.
---
Interviewed by Andrew Allard ‘25
Hi Jon! Thanks for joining me for this year’s inaugural Hot Bench. For our readers that haven’t had the pleasure of meeting you yet, tell us where you’re from, where you went for undergrad, and why you came to law school?
Thanks for having me! I was born and raised in The Woodlands, Texas; it is a suburb north of Houston. My parents met in law school at the University of Texas at Austin, which means I was raised by two attorneys. But I didn’t immediately follow in my parents’ footsteps. First, I pursued petroleum engineering at UT followed by four years in the oil field. Within about two years of working as a petroleum engineer, I realized the path I was walking didn’t lead where I wanted it to go. The job I had at the time, and most jobs in the industry, did not challenge me to think critically or be creative; rather, I was confronted with copy-and-paste tasks and checklists that needed to be followed. My choice to pursue the law was a choice to pursue a challenge, and my time at UVA has left me with zero regrets.
That’s wonderful—hopefully we can keep you at zero regrets by the time the interview is over. I understand that you’re rather enthusiastic about legal practice in Texas and perhaps Texas in general… Why should UVA Law students pursue a career in Texas?
If you will allow a shameless plug, Lone Star Lawyers is an organization that answers this question at their event “Why Texas” on Thursday, August 29th at 7 p.m. (right after the Student Activity Fair) in Purcell Reading Room. We talk about all the pros of the Texas Market and how to land a 1L summer associateship.
Alright 1Ls, don’t miss it! On a related note, do you have any wisdom to impart on starting the 1L journey?
If you are facing a problem, attempt to solve it on your own, then take a moment to formulate a thorough question (sometimes this process answers the question), then ask someone for help. There are so many incredible people at this Law School (student affairs, OPP, student orgs) who love to help. There is no reason for anyone to struggle on their own. And you don’t have to confine yourself to the Law School. If you aren’t sure how to apply to a specific firm, find an alumnus at that firm and send them an email. They would love to help you.
Speaking of firm work, do you have any memorable experiences from this summer?
Absolutely. I experienced something that very few attorneys have seen in their entire career. While attending a court hearing, the court stenographer decided that she had had enough. She not only quit her job in the middle of the proceedings, but she yelled at the judge for not enunciating his words sufficiently. Then, when the attorney politely asked if she could take down the judge’s final orders for the record, because otherwise the entire proceeding was essentially a waste, she accused both attorneys and the judge of harassment. It was wild.
Wow, that is… certainly memorable! Are you taking any courses this semester that you’re particularly excited about?
I am very excited to work with Professor Ware as an LRW fellow. I remember how stressful writing a brief can be, and I hope I can make the process a little easier. I am also excited for “Taking Effective Depositions.” I enjoy classes that focus on real-world skills. After attending my first deposition over the summer, I look forward to seeing what went into preparing for that deposition.
Do you have any bucket list items you plan to check off now that you’re (hopefully) 3LOLing?
I have a fixed set of goals for this final year of academic opportunity to ensure that I am well positioned to succeed in my career. I want to visit more wineries, play more softball/poker/board games, enjoy the weather, and relax.
You sound very responsible! I wish I could relate. How would you describe your taste in music?
I would describe my taste in music as exceptional. Others would describe it as “the gayest thing about him.” Harsh, but pretty accurate—I am very excited about attending a Gracie Abrams concert this semester.
Do you have any tips for novice poker players on how to improve their game?
Watch a YouTube video explaining the basics and then sit next to someone better than you who will whisper sweet nothings advice as you play.
Hm… this sounds strangely familiar. OK, lightning round! Favorite Charlottesville restaurant?
Ivy Provisions. I love their sandwiches and coffee.
Great pick. Favorite Olympic sport?
The swim relays are always my favorite. The best Olympic event in our lifetimes was the “Beat the French” 4 x 100m freestyle relay at the 2008 Beijing Olympics.
If you could reboot any movie or TV series, what would it be?
The Goonies, without a doubt. As long as they stick with similar themes, I think it would be a hit.
I’d definitely watch it! Crocs—in or out?
Out. It’s either tennis shoes or boots for me.
Which cryptid would you be most excited to encounter in the wild?
The Loch Ness Monster springs to mind, if only because it means that I am in Scotland. I visited the country with my little brother the summer before 1L year and loved it.
The Funding Cases
77 U.Va 1 (2024)
Once again, the Virginia Law Weekly is short on money. In an effort to silence the inconvenient pangs of a free press, the University of Virginia has cut the organization’s funding. While others eat and drink on the school’s dime, this Fourth Estate spends its money on entertaining and informing the student body. They even create a surplus by leaving leftover pizzas on the Brown Hall tables–which are acquired through an independent advertising agreement.
Being the litigious bunch they are, the Law Weekly managing board sued the school in a flurry of cases to secure adequate funds for the year’s operations. This Court finds them successful in every effort, and orders several million dollars be sent their way.
In re Staircase
Coleman, J., delivers the opinion of the court.
“One entered the city like a god; one scuttles in now like a rat.” When he uttered those words, historian and Yale professor Vincent Scully, Jr. had New York’s Penn Station in mind. But his sentiment is equally applicable to the Slaughter staircase of old. Under cover of summer break, the administration laid waste to the elegant and stately passage at the front of Slaughter Hall. In its place is nothing but a Stalinesque wall. As soon as the Law Weekly managing board learned of this change, the paper filed suit under Virginia’s landmark preservation laws and related Charlottesville ordinances. For this unlawful demolition of an historical landmark, the Court finds the University liable. It remands to the lower courts to determine the full value of punitive damages owed to the Law Weekly.
OGI Antitrust Litigation
Coleman, J., delivers the opinion of the court.
The Law Weekly filed suit under the Sherman Act against the University for the actions of its wholly owned subsidiary, the Office of Private Practice. The paper has successfully alleged a § 2 violation for the office’s distribution of OGI bids. Our first step is defining the relevant market. We characterize it as OGI bids, in which OPP controls 100 percent of the market. While the University argues that the true relevant market must include interviews obtained outside the OGI process, we disagree. Pre-OGI interviews are far more valuable and convenient, and are thus not substitutes for the budget OGI bids. The second step is determining whether there was anticompetitive conduct to further expand or maintain that monopoly. This anticompetitive conduct is self-evident. Reminiscent of a Soviet command economy, students are allotted a set number of bids and must submit their documents through a centralized clearinghouse. This Court now instructs the lower court to estimate damages, and would like to emphasize the fact that they are to be trebled.
Allard v. Student Affairs
Allard, C.J., delivers the opinion of the court.
This action follows this court’s ruling in CRONCH v. Conagra Brands, 76 U.Va 17 (2024) (denying motion to dismiss alimentary rights claim that alleged defendant’s sunflower seeds were too salty). Plaintiff-Chief Justice Andrew Allard declined to join CRONCH’s suit, opting to bring this claim against Student Affairs, the distributor of the salty snacks at issue in Conagra Brands. C. J. Allard claims to have suffered a dramatic increase in blood pressure as a result of consuming sunflower seeds he received from Student Affairs. Relying on our preliminary finding that the snack was unreasonably salty, C. J. Allard seeks to recover damages from Student Affairs for the medical costs incurred due to his increased blood pressure. Notwithstanding the lack of expert testimony supporting a causal connection between C. J. Allard’s condition and his consumption of Student Affairs’ snacks—or for that matter, the lack of any medical evidence whatsoever—we agree with Plaintiff-Chief Justice Allard. We’re pretty sure we gave notice to Student Affairs, so they’re in default now. Or something.
Students v. That Library Door that Locks in the Evening
Allard, C.J., delivers the opinion of the court.
On behalf of all law students, the Law Weekly brought a claim for tortious interference against the library door that locks at night. You know the one. The action may proceed under the Court’s in rem jurisdiction. We agree with the Law Weekly’s novel theory that the locking mechanism unreasonably interferes with students’ study time by requiring them to walk all the way to the main entrance when approaching the library from the northern half of Brown Hall. Calculating the student body’s aggregated lost time from additional walking multiplied by a reasonable market rate for study time, we find the damages at around $100 trillion. Because damages are limited by recently adopted tort reform legislation, we will reduce the award to $99 trillion.
ScoCo Shareholder Derivative Litigation
Coleman, J., delivers the opinion of the court.
As shareholders in ScoCo enterprises, the Law Weekly managing board brought a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duties against the University. The claim arises out of a change in the ordering software that requires Mandy to type in the specifics of the order and the customer’s name, greatly delaying the provision of coffee and muffins. This Justice, wanting just a black coffee, witnessed the delays as our wonderful university employees had to specify the roast and type of milk for my self-serve coffee. The change fails either entire fairness or business judgment review. No manager in his right mind could possibly enact such a change. In addition to damages, this Court also orders reinstatement of the old system.
In re Missing Books
Allen, J., delivers the opinion of the court.
Cognizant of their dual roles as both defenders of the free press and students, in preparing for the new semester members of the managing board have noticed a spate of books nominally available in the library system but designated “missing.” Such status is worse than merely having a title unavailable, as it lulls the reader in need of a text into thinking it is available until further investigation reveals the subterfuge at play. With portions of the library (including the former VLR office) having already been taken for storage of an expanded faculty, the least the library could do is ensure the texts ostensibly within the collection are actually available to needy students. To be sure, it is likely the blame for these missing tomes lies in large part with patrons of the library, for (if not stealing) failing to follow proper procedure. Even so, we hold the administration jointly and severally liable for the damages accumulating from this harm to the student body, as they bear a responsibility for ensuring proper security measures and replacing the needed books which are lost or pilfered.
Point: Summer Covid sucks.
Ryan Moore ’25
Law Weekly Historian
In 1997, the Scottish director Jim Gillespie released the horror-slasher film I Know What You Did Last Summer. Starring Jennifer Love Hewitt, Sarah Michelle Gellar, and a young Johnny Galecki (of Big Bang Theory fame), a group of teens accidentally run over a pedestrian, leaving him for dead after dumping his body in the ocean.[1]
For many returning 3Ls who spent their summer at a firm, everyone knows what you did last summer: free lunches, free drinks, and maybe some legal “work.” For some KJDs, last summer was their first taste of “work” experience. For older, wiser law students, this summer was a much needed return to the workforce and a reminder of a happier time. But I do not want to hear about the legal issues you worked on, I do not want to hear about how many free lunches you had, and I definitely do not want to hear about how you “totally messed up in front of this partner” and thought you would get “no offered.”
I am not here to write about the summer associate experience. Instead, I take this opportunity to sympathize with the pedestrian in I Know What You Did Last Summer. Much like the pedestrian,[2] I also was abandoned.
While my classmates spent their post-summer job period traveling the world and lounging on the beach, I spent it sick with my third bout of Covid. I had to lie there, coughing and suffering on my couch, while all my friends posted Instagram photos of them living it up in Hawaii, Albania, Ireland, and even Florida. If I hear one more 3L’s story about how great their beach vacation was, I will seek an injunction through Law Weekly’s Court of Petty Appeals.
You have been warned.
Counterpoint: Boy did I have a great summer!
Andrew Allard ’25
Editor-in-Chief
Being a summer associate was a breeze. And what better city than New York to embrace brat summer? Not to mention the paychecks! While I refuse to identify myself as an older law student, I am certainly a wiser one. So, much like Ryan, I thoroughly enjoyed my brief return to the workforce—and my bank account’s even briefer return to a positive balance.
Early in the summer, I also got hit with Covid… and it was great! I worked from home for a couple days and hardly missed any of the big law wining and dining experience. Sure, I had a bad fever and headaches, but who doesn’t enjoy working from home in their PJs at market rate? Eventually, I healed up and returned to the office. I sure hope I didn’t spread Covid to anyone else… what are the CDC guidelines again?
Anyway, after recovering, my summer just kept getting better! I wrapped up my internship in New York and headed home to New Hampshire for a little beach vacation. There was swimming, fishing, grilling—I can’t remember another time I’ve felt so relaxed! The worst thing I can say is that I got a little sunburnt one afternoon. That healed up after a couple days, though.
Most amazing of all was the hot streak of perfect beach weather. I’d never seen anything like it. Sunny, warm, and the cooling mist of the ocean… It was as if August was calling for me to stay at the beach just… one… more… day…
Man, I sure am glad I got Covid out of the way early on in the summer. It would have been a real bummer to suffer indoors and miss out on all that summer fun!
[1] Remember this because it becomes relevant later.
[2] Spoiler alert: he lives!
Ashanti Jones ’26, Features Editor
Nicky Demitry ’26, Production Editor
Welcome back 2Ls and 3Ls, and welcome home 1Ls! As everyone settles in (or back) to life in Charlottesville, the staff here at Virginia Law Weekly wanted to provide the community with some vital information to start the year off right: where to get good food. The places that appear on this list are sourced from your fellow law students, and include spots for lunch, dinner, before Bar Review, after Bar Review, and everything else in between.
Lampo
Location: 205 Monticello Road
Price: $-$$
Go for: solid, affordable Italian spot, but most importantly the pizza
Source: Lampo Neapolitan Pizzeria
Ace Biscuit and Barbecue
Location: 600 Concord Ave
Price: $$
Go for: of course the barbecue, but the chicken and waffles is a huge fan favorite
Farm Bell Kitchen
Location: 1209 West Main Street
Price: $$
Go for: really tasty brunch, banger cocktails too
Tavola
Location: 826 Hinton Avenue
Price: $$
Go for: another Italian spot, pricier than Lampo but amazing pasta options
Vu Noodles
Location: 111 East Water
Price: $-$$
Go for: great Vietnamese food with vegan and veggie options
Alley Light
Location: 108 2nd Street SW
Price: $$
Go for: sharable French small plates, and super cute cocktails made by one of our very own editors, Nicky <3
Revolutionary Soup
Location: 108 2nd Street SW
Price: $-$$
Go for: obviously the soups, but also quality salads and grain bowls
Monsoon Siam
Location: 113 W Market Street
Price: $-$$
Go for: Thai if eating in
Thai Cuisine and Noodle House
Location: 2005 Commonwealth Drive
Price: $-$$
Go for: Thai if taking to go
Mas
Location: 904 Monticello Road
Price: $$
Go for: tapas and top notch sangria
Ten Sushi
Location: 120 East Main Street
Price: $-$$
Go for: good sushi but an even better atmosphere
Jack Brown
Location: 109 2nd Street SE
Price: $-$$
Go for: really great smash burgers
Splendoras Gelato
Location: 2050 Bond Street
Go for: great gelato (duh), but also great vegan cupcakes (only available on Friday and Saturday though)
Source: Guajiros
Guajiros
Location: 114 10th Street NW
Go for: really tasty Cuban food, plus a fun “after dark” menu
The Local
Location: 824 Hinton Avenue
Price: $-$$
Go for: very diverse menu, great option for an “I’m up for anything” kinda night
Blinded Law Students
v.
Board of Visitors of the University of Virginia
76 U.Va 22 (2024)
Coleman, J., delivers the opinion of the Court.
While the Sun turned partially black on April 8th, its deadly photons still collided with the eyes of unsuspecting law students. They come before this Court asking for fair compensation. But the University makes two claims to avoid liability for injuries sustained on Grounds and made possible by the sun-exposed area that is Spies Garden. First, Virginia tort law should apply to this action. Second, the students were contributorily negligent by looking at the Sun without protective glasses. We reject both arguments and reinstate the plaintiffs’ complaint. From now on, the Court of Petty Appeals follows a form of Better Law Theory with total disregard as to what the Commonwealth of Virginia does.
On the Day of Black Sun, students eagerly amassed in Spies Garden. The school encouraged this congregation by letting out some classes early, holding others outside, and even canceling a few. Initially, a pesky cloud covered the astronomical spectacle, but eventually gave way to reveal a Sun whose area was approximately 70% covered. While some students marveled at the celestial bodies, others felt the wrath of Apollo—without eclipse glasses, they were permanently blinded. The students come from across the nation and have a variety of domiciles.
Three forces made this tragedy possible. First, students were let out of class. Second, the Student Affairs office ran out of eclipse glasses early in the day. And third, the University has ignored the grave hazard that is Spies Garden.
II
The just cause of these plaintiffs is inhibited by two realities. First, Virginia tort law is a creature of some Victorian nightmare—contributory negligence is still a total defense to tort liability. Worse yet, the Commonwealth follows the First Restatement of Conflict of Laws! Second, and relatedly, Klaxon requires that federal courts follow the conflicts law of the state in which they sit.[1] We address both of these issues in one fell swoop.
III
This Court will not follow Klaxon and will only apply its own version of the Better Law Theory. Klaxon was decided on Erie-type concerns, but these are not issues for us. We have no concurrent jurisdiction with anyone. Parties are forcibly brought before this Court through our fictional setups. This means that there is no risk of unfairness to litigants based on the happenstance of diversity. Rather, we strive for universal unfairness.
IV
Refusing to follow Klaxon is only the first step. Now, we must formulate our conflict of laws doctrine. We choose as a foundation the much-maligned Better Law Theory, but simplify it to only include the final factor: application of the “better rule of law.”[2] So, whenever we are confronted with a potential choice of law problem, we will consider which substantive law yields the better—or funnier—outcome. While some may decry this as arbitrary, this is absolutely the outcome most consistent with our precedent. See Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U. Va. 16 (2023) (overruled on other grounds) (Lake, C.J., concurring) (“There is nothing more vital to the exercise of justice than committing to the bit.”); see also Pet. R. Civ. Pro. 1 (“We do what we want.”).
Applying that theory to this case, we choose to not apply Virginia tort law. It would be both better and funnier if the school were held liable for exposing students to the Sun’s deadly rays. But rather than apply another state’s law based on the domiciles of the plaintiffs, this Justice feels empowered to create and apply his own Uniform Eclipse Law. The UEL will hold landowners negligent and liable for treble damages if they fail to provide invitees with eclipse glasses and also encourage them to go into open spaces.[3]
We reverse and remand for a consideration of the compensatory damages. When calculating lost wages, the lower court must assume that all who are blinded were going to make partner at their Big Law firms and not retire until age seventy-five.
Allen, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I do not foundationally contest the legitimacy of this Court’s decision to craft its own tort law in response to the unique circumstances of the case at hand—my disagreement stems from their scant consideration of just how this new framework should operate. I would depart from my brethren and sistren on the bench in directing the lower court to find either that contributory negligence precludes recovery for the plaintiffs at bar or comparative negligence would require any damage award be severely curtailed. While law students are not the smartest bunch, even they must understand the risk and consequences of staring at the sun unaided by protective equipment. Though law students can (and do) trace any inconvenience or injury they suffer to the University administration in some way, these students are at least partially at fault, and should be limited in their recovery as a result.
Sandu, J., concurring in the judgment.
While I concur with the ultimate decision of this Court, I write separately to emphasize the role that the clouds present that day played in affecting law student decision-making. Although the day began as a partly-cloudy—even sunny—one, by 3:20 pm, the sky was nearly entirely covered in a thin blanket of clouds, nearly entirely obscuring the eclipsing Sun from view. It was in this context that many law students, searching for a glimpse of a rare celestial phenomenon, chose to look directly at the Sun. Thus, I would argue that even if Virginia tort law were to apply, students should not be found contributorily negligent for injuries sustained during their reasonable reliance on the protection of clouds. If anything, I believe plaintiffs have a good case for promissory estoppel against Zeus and the Water Cycle for causing reasonable reliance on the promise of cloudy weather to the students’ detriment.
Allard, C.J., dissenting.
My brother, Justice Coleman, has once again written a sound opinion and proven himself an able jurist. And yet, I cannot bring myself to join it for one simple yet crucial principle: I am a grumpy and overbearing bastard of a boss. Justice Coleman most-correctly applied this Court’s bit-commitment legal philosophy to the novel conflict of laws issue in this case, and for that, another jurist might commend him. But when I read the majority opinion I saw one thing and one thing only—an attempt to combine his actual legal studies with his writing for this Court. In response to this abhorrent behavior,[4] I must dissent.
For too long, justices of this Court have grown too comfortable incorporating real law into their opinions.[5] In doing so, they forget this Court’s most fundamental principle: We do what we want.[6] Whatever happened to the good old days of squishy, incomprehensible, and unpredictable doctrines, like substantive honor or original public meaning?[7] If we are to uphold our duty as the decider of all the Law School’s pettiest disputes, then we must take great care not to make the law too comprehensible. Litigants before this Court cannot be led to believe that our decisions are well-reasoned, lest they become satisfied with the outcome, leading the wells of pettiness to quickly run dry.
For that reason, I would adopt Justice Coleman’s same Better Law Theory—but on entirely different grounds which I refuse to disclose—and then maybe rule in favor of the Law School anyway just to shake things up a little. We are ungovernable. Amen.
---
[1] Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (1941).
[2] Robert A. Leflar, Conflicts Law: More on Choice-Influencing Considerations, 54 Cal. L. Rev. 1584 (1966). I also thank Professor Collins, though I do so hesitatingly because I don’t want him to reconsider my Conflicts grade after reading this.
[3] To respond to my Brother Allen, this Justice overheard a successful law student express confusion over whether the Sun was in between Earth and Moon or vice versa. This is indicative of the astronomical knowledge of law students. So, we cannot say that it was obvious for the reasonable law student to not look directly at the Sun.
[4] In which I have never dared to engage.
[5] See, e.g., Estate of Big Gobble the Turkey v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 76 U.Va 11 (2023) (talking about things like “the Eighth Amendment,” whatever the hell that is).
[6] Petty Rules of Civil Procedure 1. Is it hypocritical to complain about citing real law and then refer to our FRCP-inspired procedural rules? No. See Rule 1.
[7] Wait shit, one of those is real.
Law Weekly Editors
v.
Andrew Allard, in his capacity as Editor-in-Chief
76 U.Va 21 (2024)
Per curiam.
Several cases against Chief Justice Allard have been consolidated on this appeal. He stands accused of embezzling from the Law Weekly coffers, both to enrich himself and pay off a porn star, abusing his staff in meetings, and inciting a mob to hang Executive Editor Coleman. All of this was done while Allard was Editor-in-Chief, sovereign of the Law Weekly. This suit was initiated by the staff of the Law Weekly to recover monetary damages against Allard.
The group of editors contends that Article II, Section 1 of the Law Weekly Constitution allows editors to sue the Editor-in-Chief for breach of their official duties and other mismanagement. The editors rely on this Court’s precedent, in which we have asserted our authority to rein in unruly EICs. See e.g., Ex parte Law Weekly, 76 U.Va 16 (2024).
Just last term, this Court addressed the core issue in this case—the ability of disgruntled editors to sue the Editor-in-Chief. See Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff v. Lake, 75 U.Va 16 (granting a Law School-wide injunction against confusing two editors because of the then-Editor-in-Chief’s mistake). In the months since, this Court has favorably cited that opinion no less than four times. See Students for Attending Cool Events v. UVA Law Faculty, 76 U.Va 13 (2024); Ex parte Law Weekly, 76 U.Va 16 (2024); Virginia v. Harvard Law Review Ass’n, 76 U.Va 6 (2023); Allard v. Editorial Board of the Virginia Law Weekly, 76 U.Va 12 (2023). Evidently, it is an important and well-regarded case.
But something more important has happened since Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff was decided: This Court’s composition has changed. The new Editor-in-Chief is also the new Chief Justice. And frankly, he doesn’t want to get sued by his underlings. We thus hold what any rational judge would hold. Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff was egregiously wrong on the day it was decided. It must be overturned. We now hold that the Editor-in-Chief, as sovereign of the Law Weekly, enjoys editorial immunity from suit. See Allard v. Editorial Board, 76 U.Va 12 (2023) (“Our sovereign, Chief Justice of this Court and Editor-in-Chief of our paper, lays original claim to all news, future and past.”) (Coleman, J., concurring). The cases brought against Mr. Allard are accordingly dismissed.
Allard, C.J., concurring.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Court, but I write separately to address questions left unanswered in its opinion, as I believe our precedent should not be overturned lightly. Firstly, the Court’s decision today is a narrow one. Our constitution has long emanated editorial immunity vibes. Indeed, the existence of editorial immunity has previously been recognized by Law Weekly editors. See Petrina Thomas, Hot Bench: Phil Tonseth ’22, Virginia Law Weekly (Feb. 23, 2022); Nikolai Morse, Hot Bench: Dana Lake ’23, Deposed Tyrant, Virginia Law Weekly (Mar. 15, 2023). And as we made clear in the Slaughter Hall Cases, Law Weekly articles that have nothing to do with the Court of Petty Appeals can still be cited as binding authority. Thus, in issuing today’s opinion, the Court has merely clarified existing law.
Further, our opinion does not disturb the central holding of Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff, namely, that Ethan Brown ’25 and Andrew Allard ’25 are distinct entities. Nothing in the per curiam opinion can rightly be characterized as overturning that core conclusion. Nor does our opinion do anything to affect the concurrence’s foundational observation that “There is nothing more vital to the exercise of justice than committing to the bit.” Gay Section H Law Weekly Staff, 75 U.Va 16 (Lake, C.J., concurring). This opinion thus does not threaten or cast doubt on the canon of uncomical avoidance.
Lastly, some may interpret today’s decision as an effort by the Chief Justice to immunize himself from future litigation and entrench his position as the paper’s Editor-in-Chief. This is essentially correct. But who is going to stop me? You?
Coleman, J., concurring.
Why did Caesar cross the Rubicon? Contrary to popular belief, it had nothing to do with a lust for dictatorial power. The Senators back in Rome demanded that he relinquish his control over Gaul and return to the capital fully exposed to vexatious litigation–a Hobson’s choice if ever there was one. Before humanity had a robust concept of executive immunity, transitions of power were fodder for civil war.
This lesson was lost on our Court when Section H Gays was decided. But now, I will rest easy knowing that Dana Lake ’23, Nikolai Morse ’24, or Andrew Allard ’25 will never storm this office with legions at their backs. This Court comes to the appropriate conclusion that their war crimes should never result in crushing civil liability.
Allen, J., dissenting in part and concurring in the judgment
The issue at hand is both complex and arcane, implicating some of the most basic tenets of our constitutional order. Because the Editor-in-Chief of the Law Weekly is undoubtedly a state actor by virtue of their immense power at this public institution, it must be considered whether they are properly shielded against this suit by sovereign immunity, and if not to what extent relief may flow to Petitioners.
Because the suit is not merely a pretext for a suit of the state itself, it is not automatically barred. However, to the extent Petitioners seek damages which would ultimately come from the coffers of the Commonwealth, I agree their suit is properly barred, as Ex Parte Young and its progeny make clear[1] that such suits may only seek prospective and equitable relief in the form of injunctions rather than any retrospective monetary damages.
I believe this Court unnecessarily reads Section H Gays as broadly as possible, going out of its way to overrule it. That case gave little analysis to the sovereign immunity questions at play, likely due to the author having just taken the bench. While the reading entertained by the Court today is not impossible, it is strained and unneeded—a pretense to agglomerate power in the hands of the Editor-in-Chief-Justice. Thus, I would retain Section H Gays’ operative holding, retaining the possibility of injunctive relief against an Editor-in-Chief, while clarifying that the sweeping language of Section H Gays should not be read as supporting relief in the form of damages.
Sandu, J., dissenting
The majority’s decision today directly undermines the very foundation of this Court. The ability to sue Editors-in-Chief is an inalienable right of the Law Weekly and the broader Law School community. It has always existed within this Court, for it is inconceivable that the drafters of the Law Weekly Constitution did not envision themselves being potential parties in a Court designed to resolve disputes within the Law School.
First, Petty Rule of Civil Procedure 1 states clearly that “We do what we want.” The Court’s present holding therefore impermissibly constrains the Court’s jurisdiction and prevents it from doing what it wants if it wants to sue the Editor-in-Chief. While my colleagues may argue that “do[ing] what we want'' includes overturning any rules which this Court has promulgated, a far better approach would be the arbitrary and capricious denial of suit on a case-by-case basis, depending on the will of the Court. The categorical rule promulgated in this case is far too broad.
Furthermore, members of this Court are permitted to rule on cases in which they themselves are parties. As a result, Editors-in-Chief who disagree with the suit being brought against them have every opportunity to convince the majority to rule in their own favor; they may even write the majority opinion. Therefore, cases where the Editor-in-Chief failed to avail themselves of such opportunities may be construed to have consented to this Court’s jurisdiction, making the problem of sovereign immunity a moot one. Again, if the Court truly can do whatever they want, then the Chief Justice may dismiss cases against them at will – but it must depend on what would be the funniest outcome for the individual case before the Court.
Most egregiously, however, the majority’s holding directly violates this Court’s Commitment to the Bit, as codified in PRCP 3. How can this Court ever hope to decide the funniest outcome possible in each case before it if all cases involving the Editor-in-Chief, of which there are many, are entirely barred? If anything, it is often far funnier for the Editor-in-Chief to lose in a Court where they themselves are the Chief Justice. The present Court has chosen a myopic approach to comedy, humorously overturning fundamental precedent for a single case rather than considering the impact it will have on future litigants. We are cutting off our nose to spite our face.
For the above reasons, and to make known the opinions of the outgoing 3L members of this Court, I must respectfully dissent.
Morse, C.J. Emeritus, dissenting.
The consequences of today’s decision are as astonishing as its reasoning is dull. As my colleague J. Sandu correctly points out, the so-called “majority” opinion conveniently ignores our precedent, the Law Weekly Constitution, and most damning of all, the Petty Rules of Civil Procedure. I write separately, however, to criticize the majority’s use of the term, “sovereign.”
Chief Justice Allard, clearly having attended at least one Constitutional Law class (or, more likely, having at least one friend who has granted him access to their Quimbee subscription) flings what he seems to believe is quite the gauntlet: he claims that he is the “sovereign” of Law Weekly, and therefore entitled to “editorial immunity.” At this point, dear reader, please join me in a facepalm. Literally do that. Smack your open palm against your forehead with medium force. Maybe twice. Feeling a little better? Me neither.
It seems to me there are two possibilities. First, the Chief Justice might actually understand what a “sovereign” is, and intends to subvert both the Law Weekly Constitution, doing away with popular sovereignty which is the foundation of American democratic constitutionalism. Under this reading, the Chief Justice seems to be anointing himself as some sort of monarch. But given his lack of arms or resources (surely a monarch should be able to afford to print a newspaper each week), this seems unlikely.
The second, and more likely reading of the “majority” opinion, is that the Chief Justice heard someone use the word “sovereign” in passing, and thought to throw it in as simply another ingredient in his “everything but the kitchen sink” approach to judging. So, let’s help the Chief out. A sovereign is not a job title, like lifeguard, proctologist, or Editor-in-Chief. Rather, it is the entity which possesses “supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and Its administration ; the self-sufficient source of political power, from which all specific political powers are derived.”[2] While there is a colorable argument that the Law Weekly is a sovereign, the Chief can no more lay claim to sovereign status than can Darden students can credibly claim to have worked hard and learned a lot.
I dissent.
---
Welcome to the Hot Bench, Julia! And thank you for participating in our 3L Hot Bench send-offs. Let’s just get started with you telling us about what you were up to before law school and what brought you to UVA Law?
Between undergrad and law school, I was back in my hometown, Hong Kong, for two years. I was working at a local charity serving children without families and young pregnant girls. It was a life-changing experience, and I make sure to visit and volunteer whenever I’m back home.
My journey to law school was less intentional than most—I was a philosophy major as an undergrad at UCLA, and I quite literally looked up “what do philosophy majors do for a job.” Google spat out “law school,” and I just kind of took that and went with it. I definitely don’t recommend making big life decisions that carelessly . . . but it did ultimately work out, because I ended up loving it.
It seems like you were doing such impactful work, so how did you come to join a publication of such austere yet dubious character?
I decided to join after I stumbled on the Law Weekly table at the activities fair during my 1L year. I went up to the table just because they were handing out popsicles. But I found that I liked everyone I met, and it made me want to join!
As the Law Weekly’s New Media Editor, have you seen any good “new media” lately that you would recommend to our readership?
Frieren is changing my life, it’s so good. It’s newish—the first season just finished airing last month. I’m also very much looking forward to the new season of Demon Slayer (which starts airing May 12, and which threatens grave harm to my Bar prep.)
What is your favorite place to visit in Charlottesville?
I love Charlottesville so much, it’s almost impossible for me to choose. I love the Downtown Mall—my perfect day involves tea at the Twisted Branch, followed by lunch at Botanical Fare and an afternoon of wandering into all the little shops. Another favorite is the Farmers Market at IX early morning on Saturdays. I also really enjoy just driving around the mountains and back roads – the scenery is so beautiful and always changing from season to season. And most of the year there are horses, cows, deer and other animals everywhere.
What about the most overrated part of Charlottesville?
Monticello is very cool, but there are so many other things to do in Charlottesville that are just as cool and which don’t get nearly as much hype.
I am sure Thomas Jefferson is weeping from the grave. What was your favorite class taken during law school?
I took (and loved) every class Professor Krawiec offers. Repugnant Transactions was my favorite; it had the same energy as some of my undergrad moral philosophy classes. It’s also a class that has really stuck with me—I find myself thinking “what would Professor Krawiec think about this?” super often.
I also recommend Law and Literature with Professor Annie Kim to everyone. That class completely changed the way I read and write, and I truly think I’ll be a better lawyer for having taken it. Professor Kim is a fantastic educator.
What is your favorite law school memory?
There aren’t many places as beautiful as Charlottesville, with such close access to mountains, rivers, campgrounds, waterfalls . . . and I’m moving to New York City after graduation, so my memories in nature will be particularly dear to me. I went on a camping trip with some friends last fall, which is an experience I’ll cherish forever. I’ll also miss the weekly fall visits to Carter Mountain, and all the amazing vineyards nearby.
What brings you the most joy?
Nothing fancy—I get a lot of joy from small things. I really enjoy my day-to-day life. I like waking up early and meditating; collecting and drinking good tea; cooking and trying new recipes; eating dinner with friends; going for walks; drawing and crocheting. I make sure to do each of these things every week. I think it goes a long way toward keeping me sane and balanced in school (and hopefully will when I’m working, too).
Okay, it’s time for our lightning round! What is one class you would have taken if UVA offered it?
I would have loved to take a class on the Philosophy of Law.
Summer or winter Olympics?
Summer! I only really watch diving and gymnastics.
Any ideas for a novel fundraising campaign to cover the Law Weekly’s printing costs next year?
We should start auctioning off our leftover pizza on Tuesday mornings.
What career would you be doing if not law?
I’d like to think I’d be running a board game cafe or something similarly fun. I’ve also always thought it would be fun to illustrate a children’s book or be a postcard designer (is postcard designer a job that exists?)
Favorite painting in the Law School?
The cows!
Alternatives to run against Biden and Trump?
Denise, from the Harris Teeter bar. I seriously love her. The proof is in the photos—if you ever find yourself at the Teeter bar, count how many pictures of me are on the door. Jon Greenstein ’24, Tristan Deering ’24, and I also make up the entire month of September on the Harris Teeter calendar. Yes, really.
---
Interviewed by Noah Coco '26
Petty Rules of Civil Procedure
Revised Ed. (2024)
A practitioner recently brought to the Court’s attention that, while we have in previous decisions referenced our procedural rules, the Court has not published them in full. Because we are a wise and benevolent Court, we now publish the revised and annotated Petty Rules of Civil Procedure for the reference of all would-be petty litigants.
Rule 1. Fairness
We do what we want.
Comment: Some practitioners have asked: "Why write a comprehensive set of procedural rules if the first rule is that the Court does what it wants?" We encourage them to see Rule 1.
Rule 2. 1Ls
1Ls always lose unless it is funnier for them to win.
Comment: For the purposes of Rule 2, and the Petty Rules of Civil Procedure in General, LL.M.s are not considered part of the 1L class unless the complaint is one related to the first year at the Law School.
Rule 3. The Bit
(a) Our commitment is to the Bit. Therefore:
(1) The funniest outcome must necessarily prevail.
(2) In cases where both outcomes are equally funny, the most absurd outcome shall prevail.
Rule 4. There is one form of action—the Petty Action.
(a) A Petty Action is commenced by filing a petty complaint with the Court.
(b) Constructive Pettiness. Where the context in which a case arises is petty, that pettiness may be construed to apply to the entire case, even if the underlying issue would not otherwise fall into this Court’s pettiness jurisdiction.
Rule 5. General Rules of Pleading
(a) Claim for Butting In. A pleading that asks the Court to settle a petty dispute must contain:
(1) an angry or insane rambling that gets across the gist of the problem;
(2) at least a couple of sentences that look something like law; and
(3) the relief sought and “pretty please” or something to that effect.
(b) Defenses.
(1) A party may file a response to a petty pleading, but we’ll probably ignore it unless it includes:
(A) money;
(B) an even pettier counterclaim;
(C) juicy gossip; or
(D) surprisingly accurate adherence to the Court’s precedent.
Comment: These General Rules remain subject to Rule 1, as the Court may take on any case it wishes.
Rule 6. Objecting to a Ruling or Order
(a) Decisions of this Court can be appealed only to God. Good luck.
(b) If someone’s gonna bitch about the Court, we want to hear it directly. Submit it. We dare you.
Comment: Given this Court’s previous suits against the Almighty, this Court has not yet ruled on whether Divine decisions which are not directly remanded back to the Court may be appealed.
Rule 7. Pretrial Conferences
If the parties wish to duke it out among themselves before the Court issues its opinion, we’re cool with that. Fair warning—we will probably use this as an opportunity to make fun of you in the opinion.
Comment: Pretrial conferences between parties have no preclusive effect on this Court, subject to Rules 1 and 3. The Court reserves the right to rule on any case which passes its doors, even those which have ostensibly settled their differences prior to the ruling. Mootness only applies subject to Rule 3, if it is funnier for it to do so.
Rule 8. Intervention
We love a good pile-on, so anyone is welcome to intervene, as long as they’re angry at one of the parties. The more, the pettier.
Rule 10. Summary Judgment
(a) Parties are encouraged to move for summary judgment at any point in the litigation process. We’d like to get on with it. A motion for summary judgment must be accompanied by:
(1) insult(s) directed at the opposing party;
(2) in the movant’s view, a description of the funniest outcome of the case; and
(3) some light reading for our entertainment.
Rule 11. Formatting
(a) All documents must be submitted in Jokerman font.
(b) Don’t underline things. Just stop. Use italics.
(c) If you do not use Oxford commas, we will rule against you faster than a death row inmate before Sam Alito.
(d) Fix hanging words. We will not read them.
Rule 12. Defenses and Objections
(a) Defendants are encouraged to delay filing their answer until the date that will most piss off the opposing party. But note that we might just decide to go ahead with the case without your response.
(b) Every defense to a claim for butting in must be shouted from the Law School rooftops (or emailed to the Court). But a party may assert the following defenses by motion:
(1) lack of petty jurisdiction;
(2) typo in complaint, idiot!;
(3) really just not interested in this rn;
(4) male living space venue;
(5) failure to state a petty claim; and
(6) unqualified filer (1L, resident of Massachusetts, etc.)
Comment: We arguably have personal jurisdiction over everyone. Because all humans have deliberately availed themselves of pettiness at one point or another.
Rule 13. Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
(a) A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within:
(1) 21 days after serving it, or
(2) 22 days after serving, if during a leap year.
(b) In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only after begging on their hands and knees.
(c) On second thought, ignore all of the above. For the love of God, don’t bother. Whatever you filed in the first instance, we likely barely read it.
Rule 14. Applicability of the Rules
(a) If you’re rude, the Court may favor the opposing party in interpreting and applying these Rules.
(b) On the other hand, we’re not above a little bribery. Note: The Chief Justice loves a good croissant.
Rule 15. Recusals
Justices are not precluded from presiding over a case that involves any conflict of interest, up to and including decisions affecting the Justices themselves.
Comment: We modeled this one on the U.S. Supreme Court, and it’s been working pretty well for us.
Rule 16. Interpleader
Oh God, not this shit.
Comment: You cannot make me go back into my CivPro notes and read about this.
Rule 17. Help.
(a) All procedure and no substance makes the Court write dull opinions.
(b) All procedure and no substance makes the Court write dull opinions.
(c) All procedure and no substance makes the Court write dull opinions.
(d) All procedure and no substance makes the Court write dull opinions.
Rule 18. Justices shouldn't be assholes.
Comment: This rule is subject to the limitations of Rule 1.
Rule 19. Any rules not listed in this collection yet subsequently referenced by the Court are valid and within this Court’s discretion, so long as they do not conflict with an written rule absent clear and convincing language that the Court intends to overturn a previously established rule.
---
Darius, welcome to the Hot Bench! As a 3L and veteran of the Law Weekly, I know our audience would love to hear about your story. First off, where are you from, and where did you go to undergrad?
Sure thing! I’m from the California Bay Area, and I went to UC Berkeley for undergrad.
What brought you to law school, and specifically UVA?
So I worked at a small ed-tech company right after college to get some practical skills. It was fun working with web apps stuff, but I always had my eye on transitioning into the legal industry. Eventually, I got a job in the legal department of this streaming company which eventually morphed into Paramount+, and it was a cool intersection between the software work I had been doing and the legal work I wanted to do. After a few months there, I found transactional work really interesting and was set on going to law school.
As for UVA, I wanted to branch out a little bit, and Charlottesville seemed like a really cute place to live for a few years. Also, Admissions put out that $$$ if you know what I mean…
That’s an awesome bit of unique experience! What will you be up to after graduation?
I’ll be doing transactional work for tech and life science companies at a firm in New York.
As graduation approaches, do you have advice for the younger law students on how to have the best experience here?
Go to office hours. Your professor decides your grades, and they are literally setting aside time for you to ask them about the material that will be on the test. I know it may be intimidating to talk to your professor one-on-one but that time with them is so valuable.
On that same note, get out of your comfort zone. This is a time for you to grow.
What has been your favorite extracurricular outside of the Law Weekly?
Probably revitalizing NLG’s legal observer program with my homie John Henry. It’s been so fulfilling to help the people I admire most in this world. I think developing some type of legal aid skill is so important, especially for people going into private practice like me.
Are there any professors who you feel have been particularly impactful for you?
Definitely Kordana, RIP… just kidding. I hope he’s doing well. Best Corporate Law professor in my opinion. He taught me to think through legal problems creatively.
Could you tell us about your clinic (legal aid) experience?
I did the Nonprofit Clinic. It was super nice to help out local community orgs, and the workload was much lighter than most of the other clinics.
Lighting Round! Favorite restaurant around Charlottesville (Besides Dominos, the glorious sponsor of this paper)?
That’s tough; I don’t usually go out to eat. Does ice cream count as a meal? La Flor Michoacana on Cherry Ave is SSS tier.
Favorite activity/hobby when you have a few hours of free time?
I love to tend my garden. I used to be a “only grow what you can eat” dork, but now I’m trying to expand my horizons a little bit. Maybe add in a couple of pollinator friendly flowers to the mix? Hmmm.
Favorite class?
Repugnant Transactions with Professor Kraweic. I know it’s a hot take, but I love everything about that class.
Best article you have written for the Law Weekly?
That’s tough. My best article was probably my stop the steal article with former President Juhi Desai ’23. That one actually made me have a giggle fit while I was writing it.
Most tyrannical EIC you have seen at the Law Weekly?
Dana.
Backup career in case this whole law thing doesn’t work out?
There’s no backup plan. I think my calling to be a lawyer originates from a divine mandate like that of the philosopher kings of old.
What unorthodox pet would you have?
Probably a dire wolf. It’s gotta be large enough that I can ride on top of it like some shaman warrior. Maybe that’s actually my backup plan . . . .
---
Interviewed by Jordan Allen '25
ANG '??
Law School Cryptid
“How cold-hearted could you be, ANG?” you may ask. Very. But listen to ANG and learn. Each year, the fall breeze carries in a new class of 1Ls. Like clockwork, those green rascals find the audacity to begin robbing upperclassmen of precious Law School meals. They gorge themselves on Friday cookies, FedSoc Chick-fil-A, and Student Affairs snacks—all ANG’s food! It seems that each year’s class of 1Ls is hungrier than the last. Don’t they know that ANG was here long before them and that ANG will be here long after they’re gone? Admitted Students Day is the best day for ANG to seek vengeance.
Stealing the 0Ls’ food is a vengeance so sweet that, contrary to popular belief, it can be enjoyed at any temperature. And, oh! do the temperatures vary. Piping hot coffee—the real stuff, not the sludge from the library. A warm, toasted sandwich from Ivy Provisions—a feast for a starving law student who has naught but a bag of goldfish to snack on. And iced tea! A soothing refreshment in the heat of Charlottesville’s infamous false summer. Now, reader, do you understand ANG’s frustration? When did the Law School last give you iced tea?
This year’s admitted students were also treated to a dinner at Three Notch’d Brewery. Donning an admitted student lanyard, ANG managed to sneak in and fill up on chicken wings and beer. To make sure ANG’s disguise was convincing, ANG kept talking about how excited ANG was to attend such a collegial law school. Nobody suspected a thing. If you’ve ever eaten stolen food, you know that it tastes much, much better. But it’s more than that. For ANG, this is a zero-sum game. Every bite ANG takes is one less bite for the 0Ls. Ha.
As ANG lounged in a corner of Three Notch'd, ANG couldn’t help but marvel at the audacity of ANG’s own actions. Each chicken wing devoured felt like a small victory in the war against the insatiable hunger of the incoming 1Ls. But ANG's culinary conquest extended beyond mere sustenance—it was a statement, a manifesto of gastronomic justice.
But amidst the revelry and the stolen bites of barbecue, ANG couldn’t shake the nagging feeling of guilt that tugged at the corners of ANG’s conscience. Was ANG truly justified in this culinary crusade, or was ANG merely succumbing to the baser instincts of a law student’s ravenous appetite? It was a question that lingered in the air, like the scent of pulled pork wafting from the kitchen. Was ANG really any better for doing to the 0Ls the very same thing for which ANG resented them?
Just kidding. Of course ANG is better. The 0Ls don’t even know what a tort is. Okay, neither does ANG, but that’s neither here nor there. ANG earned this stolen meal through cunning and years of toil and sacrifice. For ANG, countless hours of lectures and exams may not have led to a law degree (yet), but it has always led ANG to this delicious annual tradition.
And so, as the night drew to a close and the last crumbs of stolen nachos vanished from ANG's plate, ANG couldn’t help but feel a sense of satisfaction. Much like the changing of the seasons, the sunrise, or the yearly preventable softball injury, the eventual arrival of new 1Ls was inevitable. But so, too, was ANG’s open house feast.
As ANG slipped out to return to the Copeley bleachers, ANG’s pockets heavy with purloined snacks and ANG’s heart aflutter with the joy of a well-executed caper, ANG couldn’t help but laugh. For in the annals of UVA Law lore, ANG would forever be remembered as the hungry gremlin who fought bravely for the honor (and stomachs) of Virginia lawyers. And for ANG, that was victory enough.