In re Executive Act 6§6 2025 SDSC 10
In re Article 6 s6 of the Executive Act 2023 [2025] SDSC 10
| Date of judgment | 27 May 2025 |
| Justices |
|
| Held | Article 6, Section 6 of the Executive Act 2023 is constitutional |
| Ruling | 3-0 |
| Applicable precedent | In re Appeal of Summary Ban - "mc_uighilin" (u/Panzzrr) [2025] SDSC 2 is interpreted to only to apply when the executive faces a dichotomy of options, not discretion to act or not, [8] |
MAJORITY OPINION by Justice Ivy Cactus
(with Chief Justice TheLittleSparty and Justice Syndicality agreeing)
Introduction
[1] The petitioner is seeking review into Article 6, Section 6 of the Executive Act 2023, arguing that it unconstitutionally violates equality before the law.
[2] As noted in In re Article 4 s5 of the Executive Act 2023 [2025] SDSC 9 both it and this case’s argumentations were handled simultaneously and separated into two judgements for brevity and clarity.
Summary of the Petitioner’s Argumentation
[3] The petitioner makes a straightforward argument, that the section in question allows for the executive employees to preliminarily ban individuals during periods where there is “mass spamming, mass pinging, Discord Terms of Service violations, and raiding,” or other similar offenses. They say that In re Appeal of Summary Ban - "mc_uighilin" (u/Panzzrr) [2025] SDSC 2 states that “discretionary enforcement without objective criteria or uniform procedures violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.”
[4] They then go on to cite some Constitutional law from the United States, Madisonian theory, that says power originates from institutions and not from public good will. They posit that if the section stands then the executive becomes the judge, jury, and executioner in emergency situations, which the law does not allow.
Summary of Respondent’s Argumentation
[5] The respondent opens by stating that the law has very limited scope, only applying in specifically outlined situations as stated in [3]. They argue that all of those situations make it necessary to preliminarily ban, and that the section being subject to Judicial Review helps safeguard it from possible abuse.
[6] They then argue that the section does not align with that of Article 1, Section 1 which was invalidated in In re Appeal of Summary Ban - "mc_uighilin" (u/Panzzrr) [2025] SDSC 2, because that section arbitrarily allowed the executive to choose between charging under normal charges and for terrorism. This section, in contrast, has very clearly defined use-cases, and does not give the executive arbitrary discretion to apply it to some and not to others.
Considerations
[7] The Constitution is clear. Article 20 Section 2.3. says “Under exceptional circumstances affecting public safety, a pre-emptive mute or ban may be applied before a trial.” The situations defined in this section, those being actions that directly and continuously disrupt or otherwise harm the citizens of SimDemocracy, are “exceptional circumstances”, and therefore may be handled with a preliminary mute.
[8] The verdict in In re Appeal of Summary Ban - "mc_uighilin" (u/Panzzrr) [2025] SDSC 2, regardless of its merits, is not applicable here. The court, in that case, specifically took issue with the discretion of the Department of Justice to charge people with terrorism or under the Criminal Code for miscellaneous ToS violations. No such dichotomy of choice exists here, the only choice is whether to preliminarily ban or not before trial, the same as the executive’s discretion to bring charges at all.
- [8.1] It should be noted that the verdict mentioned above allowed “[m]ass spamming (including mass pinging and mass mentions)”, “[s]erver raiding”, and “[t]he posting of sexually explicit or obscene materials” to stand as terrorism charges which could be preliminarily banned with a subsequent trial, the same exact thing this statute upholds. The reference to In re Appeal of Summary Ban - "mc_uighilin" (u/Panzzrr) [2025] SDSC 2 is, thus, not only erroneous but directly contradictory to the petitioner’s claims.
Verdict
[9] Article 6, Section 6 of the Executive Act 2023 is constitutional, and the petition is dismissed.
Citations
<references />