1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?
Court ruling number 68 (2022), On the Ability of the Speaker to Retract Citizenship.
2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?
Chapter 6 of the Legal Code, specifically Section 6.2, Clause 18:
The ruling cited a lack of provisions, at the time, in the Legal Code that allowed the Speaker’s Office to remove citizenship granted in error, which has since been rectified by subsequent legislation of the Regional Assembly.
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
Court ruling number 41 (2015), On Recognizing Outdated Rulings, establishes the precedent for acknowledging obsolete rulings to be no longer in effect, as a result of subsequent legislation superseding the language that they relied on at the time. This was further reinforced by Court ruling number 72 (2023), On Defunct Rulings, which establishes the ability for the Court to render previous Court rulings defunct as precedent due to subsequent legislation superseding them when targeted by an R4R.
4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.
Standing derives from my position as Court Examiner, as defined in Section 3.6, Clause 25 of the Legal Code: “The Court Examiner will have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court.”
5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as a whole for your request to be decided now.
In this particular case, the Court ruled that the retraction of citizenship granted in error by the Speaker’s Office was unlawful because there were no legal provisions permitting them to do so at the time. This omission in the Legal Code was corrected by the subsequent passage of the Accelerated Admission Act by the Regional Assembly, which included a clause requiring the Speaker’s Office to remove any citizen to whom they granted citizenship in error, if it is discovered within 7 days of granting their citizenship. This clause has remained in effect as part of Section 6.2. ever since, which makes the ruling contradictory to the laws of the region. It is therefore in the region’s interests that this ruling, or the relevant portion thereof, be rendered defunct to eliminate confusion and enhance consistency in our legal system.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
No.
Court ruling number 68 (2022), On the Ability of the Speaker to Retract Citizenship.
2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?
Chapter 6 of the Legal Code, specifically Section 6.2, Clause 18:
The ruling cited a lack of provisions, at the time, in the Legal Code that allowed the Speaker’s Office to remove citizenship granted in error, which has since been rectified by subsequent legislation of the Regional Assembly.
3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?
Court ruling number 41 (2015), On Recognizing Outdated Rulings, establishes the precedent for acknowledging obsolete rulings to be no longer in effect, as a result of subsequent legislation superseding the language that they relied on at the time. This was further reinforced by Court ruling number 72 (2023), On Defunct Rulings, which establishes the ability for the Court to render previous Court rulings defunct as precedent due to subsequent legislation superseding them when targeted by an R4R.
4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.
Standing derives from my position as Court Examiner, as defined in Section 3.6, Clause 25 of the Legal Code: “The Court Examiner will have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court.”
5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as a whole for your request to be decided now.
In this particular case, the Court ruled that the retraction of citizenship granted in error by the Speaker’s Office was unlawful because there were no legal provisions permitting them to do so at the time. This omission in the Legal Code was corrected by the subsequent passage of the Accelerated Admission Act by the Regional Assembly, which included a clause requiring the Speaker’s Office to remove any citizen to whom they granted citizenship in error, if it is discovered within 7 days of granting their citizenship. This clause has remained in effect as part of Section 6.2. ever since, which makes the ruling contradictory to the laws of the region. It is therefore in the region’s interests that this ruling, or the relevant portion thereof, be rendered defunct to eliminate confusion and enhance consistency in our legal system.
6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
No.
