In re EO 158-03 2026 SDSC 2
Summary Judgement - In re EO 158 - 03 [2026] SDSC 2
| Date of judgment | 12th January 2026 |
| Justices |
|
| Held | EO 158-03 §2 is illegal and is struck down. |
| Ruling | 4-0 |
| Applicable precedent |
|
MAJORITY OPINION by Chief Justice Ed
With Justice TheLittleSparty, Justice Terak, and an intoxicated Justice Ivy agreeing
Introduction
[1] The petitioner seeks judicial review on EO 158-03, issued by the President, which restricts permissions for “@everyone” pings within the server, and requested that the order be invalidated on the ground that it exceeded the President’s authority by regulating members outside the executive branch.
- [1.1] EO 158-03 removes the “@everyone” ping permission for everyone by default, and allows it for a specified number of roles.
Summary of Petition
[2] The Petitioner points to Article 7 §3 of the Constitution which prohibits the issuance of orders from members of the executive to people who they do not contain authority over. The EO’s limit on “@everyone” ping permission to certain people, and in effect, the removal of said permission for other people beyond the President’s authority, is according to the petitioner, an unconstitutional exercise of EO power due to it applying to people outside of the executive.
Summary of Response
[3] The court heard no response.
Analysing the Order’s Authority
[4] EO 158-03, like many others, deviates from the Constitution’s strict definition of an Executive Order, in-where it is not ordering subordinates, but instead proclaiming an exercise of the issuer’s power. This is further discussed in In re EO 143-04 2025 SDSC 24 [12-13] which recognises Executive Orders exercising “statutory-authority” where an order’s authority is explicitly authorised by legislation.
[5] In the case of EO 158-03, its statutory authority is drawn from Article 5 §4 of the Constitution, which grants the President primary authority over the management of core territories, including the Discord, in the absence of specific legislation to the contrary. The exercise of this authority naturally could affect members beyond the executive.
[6] As such, the order is recognised as an exercise of statutory authority within an Executive Order. The Court therefore dismisses the petitioner’s argument that the order is unconstitutional solely because it is issued as an Executive Order.
[7] The analysis will then shift to whether the exercise of managerial and organisational authority within EO 158-03 complies with the requirement of an absence of legislation to the contrary.
Statutory Compliance
[8] Article 2 §4 of the Census Act mandates that the Census Administrator be given the “@everyone” ping permission to post the census results in the official-announcements channel. EO 158-03’s strict wording which limits this permission only to a specific list, discluding the Census Administrator, contravenes with this requirement, and therefore violates the Constitutional requirement of absence of legislation to the contrary in exercise of managerial authority in core territories by the President.
Verdict
[9] EO 158-03, specifically §2, is illegal and is struck down.