Judicial Review
Comments
MAJORITY OPINION.—The Legislation (Amendment 6) Act 2026 conflicts with the Constitution and existing statute law.
Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution gives express Branch Independence; while Article 4, Section 1 expressly mandates "All Judicial powers within the White House shall be vested in the Judicial Branch.”, further relying on Article 8, Section 7 affording “The right to a fair trial shall not be infringed”.
Creating unnecessary time restraints on the bench to issue rulings in a 10 day period is a display of Congressional overreach that the Constitution intends to prevent.
Limiting the Court in this way violates the Right to a Fair Trial by pressuring the bench to issue rulings based on a time limit rather than considering supportive legal argument, extensive statute law research and deliberations amongst the rest of the Court.
Ruling in favor of this Amendment sets a chilling precedent to allow Congress to continuously adjust time restraints on the Court in an effort to pressure or control judiciary outcomes.
WHEREFORE.—The Legislation (Amendment 6) Act 2026 is hereby declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and thus shall not take effect.
SO ORDERED.—Senior Associate Justice Inconclusive- delivered the opinion, in which Deputy Chief Justice Kelpti and Associate Justice .Martin joined.
DISSENTING OPINION.— I respectfully dissent from the majority’s determination that the Legislation (Amendment 6) Act 2026 is unconstitutional.
Article 4, Section 1 vests judicial power in the Judicial Branch. This amendment does not transfer that power to Congress or dictate how the Supreme Court must rule. The Court remains responsible for reviewing the legislation and issuing the final determination.
I also do not find that a statutory timeframe alone violates branch independence. The current Legislation Act already gives the Supreme Court seven days to complete an initial Judicial Review. The proposed ten-day period similarly regulates procedure rather than the outcome of the Court’s decision.
The ten-day requirement is also not absolute, as the amendment expressly provides an exception where a hearing is determined.
I further disagree that the Right to a Fair Trial applies here. A Judicial Review appeal concerns the validity of legislation, not the guilt or punishment of an accused person.
I acknowledge the drafting error referring to P7, S4 rather than P7, S1(4), as well as ambiguity surrounding the hearing provision. However, I do not find those issues sufficient to establish a constitutional incompatibility.
WHEREFORE.— I would find the legislation constitutional, subject to a Correction Slip correcting the enactment reference.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
SO ORDERED.—Associate Justice Brokyy_ delivered this dissenting opinion.