In re Suspension of the EBAA Act 2025 SDSC 26
In re Suspension of the EBAA Act [2025] SDSC 26
| Date | 17th August 2025 |
| Justices |
|
| Held |
|
| Ruling | 4-1 |
| Applicable precedent |
|
MAJORITY OPINION by Justice Ivy Cactus
(with Justice Syndicality, Justice Britz, and Justice Ed agreeing, and Chief Justice TheLittleSparty dissenting)
Introduction
[1] On the 14th of August of this year, the Senate passed an act (the “Suspension of EBAA Act”, herein “the suspension”) “temporarily suspending” the Executive Bill Approval Act 2025 (EBAA) for a period of three (3) days. The nature of the bill, in conjunction with the nature of the suspension, has led to several points of contention between the executive and legislative branches of this fine nation — culminating in a petition submitted by member of both branches, Muggy.
[2] Due to the time-sensitive nature of the matter and its implications on current events, the Supreme Court has elected to hear it summarily.
Transcription of Events
[3] On the 13th of August, the Senate overrode a Presidential veto of the SDVRE Act, making it law.
[4] The President, at this point, refused to appoint a Secretary of Voter Registration. The Senate, in a rush, passed a number of laws to remedy this (such as allowing the Senate to appoint the Secretary, etc.). The President neglected to sign any of these laws at the rate the Senate intended.
[5] In response, the Senate passed “the suspension”, making it so all legislation it passed went into immediate effect, so that it could circumvent the President’s “filibuster”.
Is the Suspension Legal?
[6] The petitioner first asks the court if such a motion, suspending a law for a period of three days, is within the Senate’s legislative authority. The court believes that it is. Part of the Senate’s ability to “represent the interests of the people by wielding legislative authority” (Article 1§1 of the Constitution) is its ability to dictate when and how laws apply. To use the example given by the petitioner, it's no different from passing a law with a sundown period of three (3) days; in this scenario, it just works in the inverse.
- [6.1] It should be noted that, indeed, this same ability is what makes the EBAA legal in the first place. If the Senate did not have the power to dictate exactly when laws it passed could be applied, then it would not be able to pass a law like the EBAA, which delays all bills from taking effect for a period of three (3) days.
When does the Suspension Take Place?
[7] The question, then, is when the suspension takes effect. With the Senate proposing that it took effect immediately upon passage, and the executive proposing that it will not take effect until the process described in the EBAA is fulfilled.
[8] The argument that “the bill suspends the EBAA, so the EBAA does not apply” falls flat. Indeed, upon taking effect, the law suspends the EBAA for three (3) days, thereby negating the EBAA’s requirements. Until the point the law takes effect, though, the EBAA’s requirements are still active.
[9] There is still a question, though, as to whether the suspension takes effect after the requirements of the EBAA are fulfilled, or whether they take effect “immediately”, as stated in the suspension itself. What this boils down to, broadly, is whether the Senate can procedurally bind itself in a way that prevents future senates from being able to void the restriction.
[10] This is certainly not the case; part of the Senate’s ability to “represent the interests of the people by wielding legislative authority” is the ability to decide how and when certain laws apply (as described in [6]). Indeed, to be able to freely “prepare, reform and repeal” (Article 1§2.2 of the Constitution), the Senate must be able to manipulate restrictions it places on itself as it sees fit. Senates of the past can not restrict Senates of the future in perpetuity.
- [10.1] To give a less political example, imagine the Senate passed a law that says “all laws must wait one (1) week before going into effect.” It would be absurd to state that the Senate is not able to pass a law that voids such a burden it has placed upon itself.
- [10.2] To put it in perhaps more understandable terms, the EBAA does not stop legislation from being passed; it suspends it from taking effect until its requirements are fulfilled. It is not the case that the Senate has not passed the law yet; there is no reason another law could not come and waive that suspension, as the suspension itself has done. The same logic that allows the EBAA to exist also allows its immediate negation.
- [10.3] It is the court’s firm opinion that it is not the court’s place to dictate when the Senate can, or cannot, make good or bad policy decisions. Whether ignoring a law it wrote, either temporarily or permanently, is a good idea or not is squarely outside of this court’s ambit.
[11] The Senate may, then, place legal burdens on itself through legislation. It is impossible, though, for such a burden to be placed such that the Senate is unable to lift it at any point it sees fit.
Verdict
[12] The Suspension of EBAA Act went into effect at the moment it was passed, and the EBAA is not currently active.
Post Script
[13] With that being the case, it would probably be ideal if the Senate edited the EBAA itself to include procedure on “suspending the rules”, to avoid future confusion.
DISSENTING OPINION by Chief Justice TheLittleSparty
[14] It is my firm belief that the only people idiotic enough to willfully invert logic to serve their own gain are computer scientists and legislators. It is fundamentally absurd to state that an existent piece of legislation can be consciously contradicted, and that the contradiction be granted priority over the established law. In no way do I contend that the legislature ought to be bound wholly and totally by the actions and laws of the past. It is antithetical to a democratic society that change be made impossible, or even remarkably restricted. What I do however believe is, in the words of Sir Roger Scruton, "the sentiment that good things are easily destroyed, but not easily created". In this endeavor, I do not for a moment believe that if the Senate, presuming of course their functioning as intelligent, possibly even rational, human beings, knowingly pass a contradictory law, that the contradiction be registered as anything other than illegitimate. If the Senate desires to change a law, they ought to be obligated to first repeal said law, then pass one which suits their particular desires. It is the responsibility of this Court to ensure that the Senate does not trample this nation into the ground, and in so doing this seems to this Justice, as to be an inordinately low bar already, without the good Justice Cactus handing the Senators yet another loaded gun.