In re The Elder Council Act of 2022 SDSC 2
In re The Elder Council Act of 2022 SDSC 2
| Alternate citation | In re The Elder Council Act of 2022 [2022] SDSC 2 |
|---|---|
| Date of judgment | 1st September 2022 |
| Justices | Chief Justice halfcat__ Justice IvyCactus Justice Literal |
| Held | Article 5, Section 2 of the Elder Council Act of 2022 was unconstitutional. |
| Ruling | 3-0 |
| Applicable precedent |
MAJORITY OPINION by Justice Ivy Cactus
(with Chief Justice halfcat__ and Justice Literal agreeing)
Introduction
[1] The petitioner is seeking judicial review of the Elder Council Act of 2022 (ECA). They allege that the ECA violates the right to liberty and security of the person as set out in article 26 of the Constitution.
Argumentation
[2] The petitioner makes a short case, observing that the then members of the Elder Council (Kangawolf as Speaker of the Senate, Sam as President, and Turtle as President-candidate runner-up) were confined to a single channel, creating a “De facto prison”. They then conclude that due to a lack of trial this restriction violated the “Article 26 right to due process”.
[3] The respondent agrees that the act is “blatantly unconstitutional” because it violates the elder council members right to “free speech”.
Is the Act Unconstitutional?
[4] Article 5, Section 2 of the ECA reads as follows: “When the council is in session, members of the Elder Council may only be able to speak in the Grand Council Hall.” It’s only subsection goes on to clarify that this confinement is meant to speed up the selection of the new supervisor.
[5] The confinement of a person’s ability to speak to one channel is a clear violation of their liberty, as it in function acts as an arrest.
[6] The question then, is if the violation of liberty is permissible under the Due Process clause, which outlines 6 legal methods for one to have their liberty restricted. None of these subsections allow the senate to restrict the liberty of members for the sake of increasing their productivity.
[7] However, the section explicitly only effects the speed of the Elder Council’s actions, and not the process itself. Therefore, it can be severed from the rest of the act without negatively effecting its functionality.
Verdict
[8] Article 5, Section 2 of the Elder Council Act of 2022 is unconstitutional, void, and of no effect.
