Buffalo Wild Wings words: When judges put the pun in punishment

March 12, 2026
Illustration of a judge’s gavel surrounded by spicy chicken wings

(Image generated by John DiJulio, University Communications, assisted by AI)

A bony case was recently litigated in court. The question: Was Buffalo Wild Wings deliberately deceiving its customers when the chain labeled one of its menu items “boneless chicken wings”?

Well, at least one person thought so. In 2023, Aimen Halim argued that with no bones in the wings, they were essentially chicken nuggets. Knocking down the claim, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Judge John J. Tharp Jr. leaned hard into pun territory.

“Despite his best efforts, Halim did not ‘drum’ up enough factual allegations to state a claim,” he wrote, adding Halim’s argument “has no meat on its bones.”

University of Virginia School of Law professor John Setear is a bit of an expert on pun-filled rulings. “The use of humor and puns often attracts attention to a judicial opinion in the larger world,” he said.

Portrait of John Setear sitting outside

“Humor and puns in judicial opinions attract attention and remind people that judges aren’t just dry, distant figures,” UVA law professor John Setear says. (Photo by Julia Davis, UVA School of Law)

Here are some notable examples, including one involving the band Supertramp, known for .” Supertramp’s members had a deal about how to divide songwriting royalties, and they obeyed the agreement for quite a while.

“They had a lot of earworm kind of hits with very repetitive lyrics,” Setear explained. “And then I think the main songwriter decided that it was time to end the agreement and that only he would collect royalties.”

In his decision overruling the bid, the judge quoted another Supertramp song,

He suggested the band members effectively became “strangers” when their dispute over royalties began, and, in discussing the royalty-sharing arrangement, also referenced yet another of the group’s songs,

“(T)hey wanted the original songwriter to ‘give a little bit,’” Setear quoted the judge as saying.

Discovery and Innovation: NASA selects UVA researcher for asteroid mission
Discovery and Innovation: NASA selects UVA researcher for asteroid mission

There is also a . A man purchased a home in Nyack, New York, only to learn it had a local reputation for being haunted. He argued the seller should have disclosed that reputation and sought to cancel the sale. The judge ruled in his favor.

“The opinion says things like, ‘The plaintiff, to his horror, discovered that the house was haunted,’” Setear explained, adding that the case is widely taught in law schools across the country. “Those puns, plus the fact that it’s about a haunted house, make it much more likely for contracts professors to cover the case.”

Then there is the 1985 contact lens case and the ruling by then-federal appellate Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

When soft contact lenses were introduced, the Food and Drug Administration required manufacturers to do extensive testing before the lenses could be sold. Makers were not happy and sued. In her ruling in favor of the FDA’s stance, Ginsburg had this to say: “Courts must always see through a glass darkly when they evaluate expert opinions.”

“If you’re one of the litigants who’s invested a lot of time or money, you might not be as excited about a lighthearted resolution of your dispute,” Setear noted, saying judicial puns are a rarity. Still, “The use of humor and puns often attracts attention to a judicial opinion in the larger world.”

Media Contacts

Jane Kelly

University News Senior Associate Office of University Communications

The Latest From Business & Government