In re No More Robbing the Reserves Act 2025 SDCR 10

In re No More Robbing the Reserves Act 2025 [2025] SDCR 10

Date	17th October 2025
Judges	Judge ppatpat Judge Hmquestionable Judge Brandmal
Held	The No More Robbing the Reserves Act 2025 is constitutional
Ruling	3-0
Applicable precedent	Debts must have existed at some point for them to be protected under the Constitution The Right to petition for the redress of grievances does not include the Right to successfully gain redress at all times.

MAJORITY OPINION by Judge Brandmal

(with Judge ppatpat agreeing and Judge Hmquestionable concurring)

Introduction

[1] The petitioner filed a request for judicial review of the No More Robbing the Reserves Act 2025. Specifically, they contend that Art. 2 §1. of said act is unconstitutional. The Article adds a section 4 to Article 22 - Wrongful Dismissal of the Civil Code 2025 that reads: "This tort shall not be applicable if the Plaintiff was fired due to the defendant not having proper funding to pay said Plaintiff".

[2] The petitioner argues this provision violates the Right to have one's debts paid by the government and the Right to petition the judiciary for grievances. The relevant constitutional language is:

§1. The Government shall repay its debts to its citizens.
 §1.1. The government can only void these debts if the citizen fails to meet their obligations to own these debts or leaves SimDem for more than sixty (60) days.
 §1.2. Government bonds must be re-purchased, repaid, or expropriated from the citizens who own them if the government wants to end them.
 §1.3. The government cannot void any agreement with a citizen without providing equivalent appropriate compensation.

§1. Every person shall have the right to freedom of expression, which shall include the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, freedom of faith and conscience, freedom of peacefully exercising religious beliefs, and the right to petition for redress of grievances [...] ", emphasis added.

Injunction

[3] The petitioner also requested an injunction into the Act under review. The Court did not grant such an injunction, as we, in accordance with Supreme Court precedent, saw neither high likelihood of success nor the risk of substantial damages to the petitioner. Torts have no statute of limitations and as such, no loss of Rights is to be expected. This Court reiterates the Court of Review's power to issue injunctions to any and all Inferior Courts, as supported by Art. 14 CPA.

On the Protection of Debts

[4] No precedent on this Right exists yet. The preamble of the constitutional amendment says: "Whereas past governments have refused to pay their debts, Whereas past governments refused to pay bondholders". This gives us an idea of the legislative intent behind said amendment.

[5] In accordance with the doctrine of judicial restraint, the Court will now answer the narrowest question before it. The Protection of debt requires, at minimum, for debt to be present. In order for debt to exist, one side must have an obligation to pay the other side.

[6] This Court explicitly does not say that debt is gone, once the lawful basis for it is, as that is explicitly what the constitutional amendment tried to fix (see also FakeRealRedditor v State of SimDemocracy [2020] Civ 4, which is what the legislator, in the interest of trust in the system, wanted to avoid). Hence, in a SimDem sense, it is indeed sufficient if there once was a lawful basis for an obligation of the State to pay another party.

[7] Turning back to the law under review however, it does not affect the money owed due to contractual obligations. This money clearly is debt, but the applicable tort here would be breach of contract. Wrongful dismissal makes it tortious to fire people in an unwarranted way. However debt in this sense only occurs, once the tortious act is committed. If no tortious act happened, the State does not owe the employee any money. Therefore, no existing debt has been voided, but rather, the criteria for future debt has changed. Thus, the Protection of debt does not cover this case.

On the Right to petition for redress of grievances

[8] The Constitution protects the Right to petition for redress of grievances in Article 18 §1. This is notably distinct from Art. 29 §4., which the Supreme Court has interpreted to refer only to judicial review before it in In re 38th Presidential and 38th Senatorial Elections 2020 SDSC 10. Again, no precedent exists yet.

[9] To not prejudice future matters, the Court will therefore again apply the doctrine of judicial restraint. It will further assume that Article 18 §1. of the Constitution provides an individual Right to petition a competent court specifically, though it is very much doubtful whether this is the case. While the section under review may limit the chances of success of a "petition for redress of grievances", it does still allow for petitions (their potential success notwithstanding). Prima facie, it is therefore apparent that the statute does not violate this Right either.

Verdict

[10] Art. 2 §1. of the No More Robbing the Reserves Act 2025 is constitutional as it neither violates the Protection of debts nor the Right to petition for redress of grievances.

CONCURRING OPINION by Judge Hmquestionable

[11] I write separately to clarify my position on the right to "petition for redress of grievances". In my opinion, this right extends solely to the ability to "petition" for redress of grievances. It does not specifically apply to the Judiciary. Rather, it is a right for every person who has been aggrieved to complain about their issues to the respective body to which the grievance is directed. However, just because one has the right to complain about a matter does not mean that anything will come out of the complaint.