In re Touch Grass Act 3 2026 SDCR 48

Summary Decision In Re Article 3 of the Touch Grass Act of 2025 [2026] SDCR 48

Date	26th April 2026
Judges	Chief Judge Matt Cheney Court of Review Judge Zepz367 Court of Review Judge Thyme
Held	Article 3 of the Touch Grass Act is unconstitutional
Ruling	3-0
Applicable precedent

MAJORITY OPINION by Chief Judge Matt Cheney

(With Judge Thyme agreeing and Judge Zepz concurring)

Introduction

[1] This Judicial Review comes before the Court, requesting us to take a look at Article 3 of the Touch Grass Act of 2025 to examine its Constitutionality. Petitioner claims this statute is in violation of Article 24 §3 and Article 25 §1 of the Constitution. The Court decided not to hear arguments for this case, making this a summary decision.

Summary of Arguments

[2] Petitioner keeps their arguments short and sweet; they start by citing the two pieces of the Constitution seen supra, and then make the point that going outside can expose one to many dangers, especially as the average SimDemocracy user does not spend much time outdoors. They also point out the threat of injury or violence that can occur in the “real world”, and that the State obligating a user to get a reality check from nature adds to the inherent risk mother nature has surrounded us with.

[2.1] Petitioner does note that the statute carves out an exception for those with allergies, however does point out there are more underlying health issues that could be made to flare up from the oxygen found outside the safety of your front door.

[2.2] The Court also notes that in order to secure the protections of §1.1 of Article 3, one would need an allergy to every type of plant, which is an absurd amount of allergies for one person to have.

[3] Petitioner rounds out their arguments by pointing out that the State has no way of knowing how difficult it may be for a user to find a plant to pet, leaving them violating the law for the simple fact of their land not being arable. Finally they state that forcing a user to find a plant in real life in the first place is compulsory labor, and therefore unconstitutional.

On Constitutionality

[4] To begin, we will look at the statute at hand, then put it side by side with the two lines from the Constitution, and from that we will derive our answer. Article 3 of the Touch Grass Act mandates that “all persons must come into physical contact with grass, shrubbery, or some other type of plant, from time to time.” The Senate, ever forward looking, creates an exception for those with allergy concerns, and excludes them from needing to come in direct contact with any plants to remain within the bounds of the law.

[5] Article 24 §3 of the Constitution forbids the State from tasking anyone with something that may cause harm to their physical safety. “The state shall be prohibited from placing any duty on a citizen that risks their physical safety.” The question to determine if Article 3 survives the test of Article 24 becomes, does requiring a user to touch a plant constitute placing a duty on them that risks their physical safety?

[5.1] To answer this we will first apply the reasonable person standard, as defined in Nolan (Appellant) v Lucas (Respondent) [2025] SDSC 33, to decide if the reasonable person would typically find themselves in risk of physical harm upon adventuring outdoors. The average person, see id, is capable of applying common sense and foreseeing risk, so we find it dubious to assume that the reasonable person would experience danger lurking at every corner when stepping outside. The simple fact that something harmful can happen does not mean it will happen. Additionally the reasonable person is of “sound body and mind”, so the underlying health problem and extreme allergy argument remains unpersuasive.

[6] Additionally, Article 3 mandates a user must touch a plant “from time to time”, which is a very broad and unspecific measure of time. One could argue that you could touch a plant once a year, which would present minimal physical danger, and the requirement would be fulfilled.

[7] Now we will examine Article 25 §1, which states “no person shall be held in slavery or servitude or be compelled to perform forced or compulsory labour”. In In re EO 143-04 [2025] SDSC 24, the Supreme Court ruled that an Executive Order mandating that someone go purchase ice cream for another constitutes labor. Under that definition, a statute asking a user to stand up, locate a plant of some kind, physically get to it, and then touch it, also certainly fits within that definition.

[7.1] In the same decision, see id, the Supreme Court ruled that because an individual could resign from their position in the Executive branch after being given an order of compulsory labor, that it did not violate Article 25 of the Constitution. In this case the law mandates the labor for “all persons”. A citizen cannot “resign” from personhood or citizenship to escape this mandate, and the labor becomes truly compulsory as there is no reasonable way to refuse.

Verdict

[8] Article 3 of the Touch Grass Act of 2025 is unconstitutional.

Dicta

[9] The Court thanks the petitioner for the filing, as this was a fun case to write and read for.

CONCURRING OPINION by Judge Zepz

[A1] While I agree with the conclusion my colleagues have come to, I can not say I agree with the reasoning.

[A2] SimDemocracy is strictly an online community. Due to that, provisions like Article 3 of the Touch Grass Act are completely unenforceable.

[A3] That unenforceability stops the statute at hand from becoming compulsory labor, as SimDemocracy is strictly an online community, the Senate has no authority to legislate real life matters like mandating people to touch grass.

[A4] Thus, I concur.