Court Opinion
Written by .Martin
6th October 2026, 14:50 PM UTC
MAJORITY OPINION.—The passage of the Group Badges (Rewrite) (Amendment 1) Act 2026, which was found constitutional by this very court, contained a reference to the Fake White House badges crime under Part 1, Section 18 of the Crimes Act 2025. This is a specification of the crime as established therein, and must therefore be taken into account when interpreting this.
Part 1, Section 18 of the Crimes Act 2025 titles this crime as "Fake White House Badges". And while the definition under P1, S18(1)(1) of the same act is "Owning or Joining a [WH] badge that is not owned by Praeceptor" (followed by some exceptions), the "[WH]" cannot in good faith be taken to mean the prefix of the name of the Habbo group. It must be taken to refer to the White House organization, and therefore any official badges established under White House law, specifically the Group Badges Act 2025.
Furthermore, as a living community, it would not make sense to limit employees from creating Habbo groups with the prefix "[WH]" to expand on this community. In the previous iterations of the White House, it has been tradition for people to create unofficial groups (though not copying any official, legislated groups), such as "[WH] Congress Order of Merit", for the monthly Congressional award; "[WH] - Former Cabinet", for anyone who has served in the Executive branch; "[WH] - Former Judicial", for former employees in the Judicial branch; et cetera. And these badges are entirely legal to make, so long as they do not purport to be official badges, or copy or mimic official White House badges, whether it be the group name, group description and/or group badge (i.e. insignia/design).
WHEREFORE.—"A [WH] badge" in Part 1, Section 18 of the Crimes Act 2025 is defined as an official White House group as regulated under the Group Badges Act 2026, thus interpreting the crime as defined in the Crimes Act 2025 in line with P1, S1(6) of the Group Badges Act 2025, cf. the Group Badges (Rewrite) (Amendment 1) Act 2026.
SO ORDERED.—Associate Justice .Martin delivered the opinion, in which Chief Justice dreckly, Deputy Chief Justice Kelpti, Senior Associate Justices Inconclusive- and Brokyy_ and, Associate Justices Pawtistic joined
