Supreme Court Orders and Opinions
The term "opinions," as used here, refers to several types of writing by the Justices including majority and minority opinions. However, all the court's actions and remedies are prescribed in a written majority order and opinion and are documented below.
The Court may also dispose of cases in per Curiam opinions, which do not identify the author. These opinions frequently resolve cases summarily, often without oral argument.
All orders are binding on members of the Student Government or those seeking office therein. The written opinion provides insight into the courts justification and establish a decision-making framework based on stare decisis, or precedent which guides the court in making decisions on similar cases in the future.
Each set of cases is categorized by the presiding Cheif Justice during the issuance of the order and opinion.
Orders and opinions will be uploaded as they occur.
The primary question before the Court was for guidance as to how absences from required events effect overall attendance and if those absences can be used for impeachment. The Court decided to create reasonable limitations on required event times and confirmed that absences from required events are the same as missing a required meeting.
The complainant requested injunctive relief pending a hearing by the Court related to the issue of a resolution passed by the Senate on September 8, 2014 with 13 votes in the favor, 8 votes against and 5 abstained votes. The complainant believed that this violates Article III, Section 4 of the Constitution which requires a majority vote to pass any Senate action. The Notice of Complaint was rejected and injunction denied by the Court.
An order desolving an Injuncation and reinstating the Election Board disqualification of Abdualrahman Muhialdin.
The complainant requested relief in the form of an extension of the Student Government scholarship and granting by the Supreme Court that the scholarship is open to member of Student Government. The complainant believed that the Scholarships Act granted access to Student Government members.
In addition to the specific relief granted in this case the Supreme Court established an Order of Precedence doctrine by which all other cases are measured.
The Supreme Court granted the relief but declared segment of the Scholarships Act unconstitutional through an analysis of the consitutional relation to statues, using the Order of Precedence doctrine. As a result the Court could not convict President Young of a violation per se.