Opinions & Rulings

“Therefore, as per the ASUCI Constitution and Judicial Board Policies, the Judicial Board shall place an injunction on any Senate legislation not related to the appointment of a Judicial Board Justice. This injunction is automatically lifted when a four-person quorum has been established on the Judicial Board.”

December 12, 2021 – Wei v. Shahrood

None at this time.

“The Judicial Board unanimously agrees to place an injunction on any Senate activity not related to the appointment of a new Elections Commissioner, until an Elections Commissioner has been appointed.”

“The Judicial Board hereby orders that an injunction be placed on the ASUCI Special Recall Election, the President Recall Election, Senate legislation R57-54, and any actions taken by the Elections Commission, or any other ASUCI official, to advance the recall process. This injunction will stay in effect until a preliminary hearing is held, at which point the Judicial Board may choose to extend the injunction, or let it expire.”

November 14, 2020 – Pavey v. Robb et al.

October 26, 2020 – Wang v. Robb et al.

None.

Injunction 01 – July 18, 2020 – Preliminary Injunction on R56-09

“Therefore, the Judicial Board, by a unanimous consensus, in order to properly examine the issue, and pursuant to our authority under §7.1.4.1 of the Judicial Code, hereby enjoin the Senate to rescind or postpone the proposal of R56-09, subject to the findings of our board.”

“Today we find the actions of the ASUCI Senate to be unconstitutional and order the halt of those actions immediately on the grounds of contempt of judicial authority. In short, by ignoring an explicitly issued order, the defendants ran afoul with the Judicial Board’s enumerated powers.”

Injunction 03 – October 5, 2020 – Preliminary Injunction on R56-19

“Therefore, the Judicial Board, by a unanimous consensus, in order to properly examine the issue, and pursuant to our authority under §7.1.4.1 of the Judicial Code, hereby enjoins the Senate to rescind or postpone the proposal of R56-19, subject to the findings of our board.”

“Today we find the actions of the ASUCI Senate to be unconstitutional and order the halt of those actions immediately on the grounds of contempt of judicial authority. In short, by ignoring an explicitly issued order, the defendants ran afoul with the Judicial Board’s enumerated powers.”

Therefore, the Judicial Board, by a unanimous consensus, in order to properly examine the issue, and pursuant to our authority under §7.1.4.1 of the Judicial Code, hereby enjoins the government to halt implementation of the following legislations: R56-22 and R56-23. This injunction will expire on October 12th, 11 PM.”
Extended October 12, 2020 – Preliminary Injunction on R56-22 and R56-23 (Extension)
Extended October 19, 2020 – Preliminary Injunction on R56-22 and R56-23 (Extension)

Injunction 06 – October 27, 2020 – Preliminary Injunction on R56-34

“Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons and under my statutory power derived under the ASUCI Bylaws, I hereby order implementation of this legislation immediately halted, pending a full hearing.”

Injunction 07 – November 2, 2020 – Preliminary Injunction on R56-38

“Therefore, the Judicial Board, in order to properly examine the issue, and pursuant to our authority under §7.1.4.1 of the Judicial Code, hereby enjoins the Senate to rescind or postpone the proposal of R56-38, subject to the findings of our board. This injunction shall be set to expire Monday, November 9th, at 11:59 PM, unless extended as specified.”

Injunction 08 – November 3, 2020 – Preliminary Injunction on R56-35

“Therefore, as Chief Justice, in order to properly examine the issue, and pursuant to my authority under §7.1.4.1 of the Judicial Code, [I] hereby enjoins the Senate to rescind or postpone the proposal of R56-35, subject to the findings of our board. This injunction shall be set to expire Monday, November 9th, at 11:59 PM, unless extended as specified.”

Dissenting Opinion (Lin, J., joined by Abundis, C.J., Anayat, J., Bunda, J., and Gerald, J.) – [October] – Judicial Dissent on R55-04: “Appointment of Executive Cabinet Staff”