Any chance this will be decided upon before proscription is enforced? 
Your Honors,
I request that this case be dismissed. Siberian Districts is a member of a fully proscribed region, the Brotherhood of Malice, and can no longer apply for or maintain citizenship, or even residence in this region.
Your Honors,
I second ProfessorHenn’s request, and I respectfully submit that this case should be dismissed as moot. I plan to file a brief explaining the legal basis for my position over the weekend, but I understand, of course, that the Court may resolve this request before then, the time for amicus briefing having closed.
Your Honors,
With apologies for the delay in preparing this amicus brief, I respectfully renew my request that this case be dismissed as moot. While this case presented a justiciable controversy when it was filed, it no longer does. After this Court’s initial determination of justiciability, the Council on Regional Security issued a full proscription against the Brotherhood of Malice, a region of which Siberian Districts is a member. As a result of that proscription, Siberian is categorically ineligible for citizenship in the South Pacific. In consequence, this Court is no longer able to grant the remedy that Siberian seeks, namely citizenship. Overturning the Citizenship Committee’s denial of Siberian’s application would have no practical effect whatsoever on Siberian’s citizenship status or legal rights. Where this Court cannot grant any meaningful redress in response to a review request or no legal rights are affected by the challenged government action, that request is non-justiciable. And where intervening events subsequent to an initial determination of justiciability mean that a litigant’s alleged legal injury is no longer likely to be redressed by a favorable decision, the appropriate course of action is for this Court to dismiss the case as moot.
This Court has long recognized that a change in underlying facts or circumstances can render a case moot and therefore non-justiciable. Under this Court’s case law, a case becomes moot where the issues presented are no longer live, i.e., where the parties involved lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. For example, in Failure to Press Criminal Charges re: SPA, 1710.HQ, this Court was asked to interpret a recently enacted amendment to the Security Powers Act. While that case was pending, the Assembly considered repealing the legal provision at issue, leading Escade to query whether such action by the Assembly “[w]ould make this [case] a moot point?” Ibid. After the repeal was enacted, Justice Farengeto promptly dismissed the case. Ibid.; see also On No MoMA, 1608.HQ; On the State of Emergency, 1604.HQ. And this Court has not hesitated to dismiss cases on apparent mootness grounds even where, as here, the Court initially determined the case to be justiciable. See, e.g., Failure to Press Criminal Charges re: SPA, 1710.HQ; Administrators and Citizenship Removals, 16.01.HQ. That is unsurprising; intervening events can just as easily arise and moot a case after determination as before.
It is particularly important that this Court limit its resolution of review requests to live controversies that touch on the litigants’ legal rights. Unlike legal questions, which may be posed and answered in the abstract, a review request asks this Court to “void” the action of a coordinate branch on the grounds that it conflicts with constitutional law. See Charter VII(4). To be sure, an independent judiciary with the authority to block unconstitutional government action is essential to preserving both the rule of law and democratic governance. But such weighty authority should be exercised only where actually necessary to protect the legal rights of a member of the Coalition. The requirement of a live, concrete controversy restricts the judiciary to its proper role in a democratic society—namely, the protection of individual rights—and prevents it from interfering with the proper functioning of the South Pacific’s politically accountable officials in areas where those officials have discretion. Cf. Requirement of in-game consent for A2205.05 Amendment to Article XIV — Great Councils, 2208.HQ (dismissing a case as non-justiciable where “to directly answer [the] question . . . would be to usurp the functions of [a democratically elected official], an action that the Court is not willing to undertake.”). Indeed, for that reason, this Court has been careful to consider the “legal necessity and potential to impact present and future policies” in determining whether a review request is justiciable. See, e.g., Review of the Ban of New Haudenosaunee Confederacy, 1915.HR.
Application of the foregoing principles to the instant case is straightforward. This case is not live, and no legal rights are at stake. Siberian cannot become a citizen of the South Pacific due to the CRS’ full proscription of the Brotherhood of Malice. Reversing the Citizenship Committee’s decision would be purely academic; it would not afford Siberian any relief, nor would it vindicate any of their legal rights. Of course, the CRS’ actions did not permanently deprive the Court of jurisdiction over the underlying subject matter. Were the proscription to be lifted or were Siberian to successfully challenge its application to their case in this Court, then Siberian could renew their application for citizenship. And, if the Citizenship Committee were to again deny their application, that denial could be challenged in this Court. But until any such eventualities come to pass, the proscription of the Brotherhood of Malice renders this particular case moot. Thus, I respectfully request that Siberian’s review request be dismissed as non-justiciable.
High Court of the South Pacific
[2403.HR] Review of the Rejection of Siberian Districts’ Citizenship Application
Whereas a motion has been made to the Court for dismissal of the case. The Court accepts the following items:
- The petitioner is no longer a member of the South Pacific and thus no longer possesses standing to engage the Court.
- The laws under which the review request was made have since been changed; thus the case is moot.
The Court hereby grants the motion to dismiss the case.
It is so ordered.
Submission: 16 Feb 2024 | Determination: 19 Feb 2024 | Dismissal: 22 Apr 2024