Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court,

Petitioner files the following petition for a writ of certiorari in Google Doc format.

Pokagon Band v. USDOI

Respectfully submitted,

/u/Somali-PirateLvl100

Counsel for Petitioner

Announcement from the Bench:

I take the bench tonight to announce my retirement from the Supreme Court and our simulation on the whole, effective noon tomorrow, February 10th. I don’t want to make one of those big long winded speeches, but I would just like to thank the other six justices for their work and friendship during my term on the Court. It has been a pleasure. I also thank all of our litigants for their work. It has been a pleasure serving. I’ll still be around on Discord to hang out and shout out your pets names, but my time as an active participant to any extent in sim business is at an end. Thank you to everyone I’ve interacted with over the years.

Yours in Justice,

Chief Justice SHOCKULAR

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Justice Dewey Cheatem announced his resignation from his position as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: “Serving as a justice of the Court has been the honor of my life,” he said. “But it is time to make room on the bench for new blood. And it is time for me to spend more time with my family and recommit to my passion: mailing Hooked on Phonics to members of Congress.”

Justice Cheatem indicated he intended to return to private practice after taking some time for relaxation. “This is not ‘goodbye’; it is ‘see you soon,’” he added.

Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 9 posts:

• "Announcement from the Court in No. 21-06: In re Executive Order 13998: Safer Terminations Of Pregnancies" by u/dewey-cheatem
• "Happy Cakeday, r/modelSupCourt! Today you're 7" by u/AutoModerator
• "In re: Executive Order 13995" by u/hurricaneoflies
• "In re. Executive Order 13998: Safer Terminations Of Pregnancies" by u/lily-irl
• "In Re: Gregor on Ticket" by u/Adith_MUSG
• "Petition for Rehearing in Case No. 21-07" by u/ModelAinin
• "Opinion in In Re: Executive Order 13995" by u/SHOCKULAR
• "In re HurricaneofLies" by u/ModelAinin
• "Announcement from the Court in No. 20-05: Misogynists United v. United States" by u/dewey-cheatem

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court,

Petitioner HurricaneofLies (aka ModelAinin) respectfully petitions this Court for rehearing of Case No. 21-07 and to set the case for reargument on the questions of whether Executive Order 13995 is unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Petitioner respectfully submits, inter alia, that the Court's invocation of Ashwander abstention is unfounded, contrary to law, and therefore an abuse of discretion that warrants rehearing.

##Petition for Rehearing

The Court today releases its opinion in In Re: Executive Order 13995, authored by Justice Cheatem and joined by a unanimous Court. Executive Order 13995 is struck down in part and upheld in part.

The full opinion can be read here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lN7TJ2qLO3-SMRYzkegAAC_9PPBrwOfOZK6ytoxkLmA/edit?pli=1

The Court regrets the delay on this case--there were several circumstances that unfortunately made this unavoidable.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court,

Petitioner HurricaneofLies (aka ModelAinin) submits the attached Rule 7 extraordinary petition for a writ of procedendo and/or mandamus directed to the Hon. SHOCKULAR, Chief Justice of the United States, in his official capacity as administrative head of the Supreme Court.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eNlR00WKVQsoOQmz_pgfT66RcZOSbGWMJNeleDYcLuc/edit?usp=sharing

Respectfully submitted,

Hurricane

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court,

Petitioner files the following petition for a writ of certiorari in Google Document format.

Petitioner alleges that the candidacy of Mr. Gregor_the_beggar for Vice President of the United States is unconstitutional under Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.

Petition

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court,

Pursuant to Rule 4.8, Petitioner files the following petition for a writ of certiorari in Google Document format.

Petitioner alleges that Executive Order 13995 is (1) ultra vires the President's authority, (2) in the alternative, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the Free Exercise Clause, (3) in the further alternative, in violation of the Free Speech Clause, or (4) in the further alternative, in violation of the Due Process Clause.

###Petition for Certiorari

Respectfully submitted,

/u/hurricaneoflies

Petitioner

The Court has concluded its deliberations on the matter of what appears to be an attempt to prohibit abortion through administrative rulemaking under a workplace safety law. The Court issues the following judgment in this matter.

#No. 21-06: In re Executive Order 13998: Safer Terminations Of Pregnancies

Case No. 21-06, a challenge to lawfulness of an executive order

#Abstract

####PER CURIAM

1. The purpose of OSHA is to ensure safe working conditions. The guidelines within which OSHA can act limit its scope of authority to protecting employees from health risks in the workplace.

2. The unborn are not employees of any business and therefore do not fall within the scope of OSHA.

3. Because the unborn are not employees of a business and are not subject to protection by OSHA, the executive order exceeds the President's statutory, and therefore constitutional, authority.

####CHEATEM, J., files a concurring majority opinion, joined by JJEAGLEHAWK, J., in full but especially as to the first clause of the third sentence of the seventh paragraph, and by IBNEY and DOBS, JJ., except as to the first clause of the third sentence of the seventh paragraph.

1. "Today’s decision highlights the need for this Court to clarify whether the right to an abortion qualifies as a constitutionally-guaranteed right."

####DOBS, J., files an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by IBNEY, J.

1. "While this order falls outside the scope of OSHA’s authority, it is a reasonable attempt to reconcile the disparate protection of the laws given to born and unborn persons. However, there is little need to examine this question further as no action has been brought before the court on these grounds."

2. "I furthermore object to the sua sponte granting of costs to the petitioner. The court finds itself in a similar position as the Executive in its overreach of authority. Sanctions ought to be reserved for deviant, frivolous, and dubious suits."

Full Opinion

De gustibus non est disputandum,

/u/dewey-cheatem,

Associate Justice

The Court has finished its girthy and turgid deliberations on the matter of a petition from a bunch of male virgins seeking to have the Selective Service Act ruled unconstitutional on grounds that the Act unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of sex and gender identity.

With thanks for the participation of counsel for Petitioner, /u/hurricaneoflies, and the eventual participation of counsel for Respondent, /u/nmtts-, and after much consideration and several zoo-related non-disclosure agreements, the Court issues the following judgment in this matter.

#No. 21-05: Misogynists United v. United States, in re Selective Service System

Comes No. 21-05, a challenge to lawfulness of the Selective Service System.

#Abstract

####CHEATEM, J., delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court.

1. Neither judicial restraint nor the Political Question Doctrine prevents us from reaching the merits of this matter.

2. Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981), which rejected a sex discrimination challenge to the constitutionality of the Selective Service Act, is no longer applicable. The factual underpinnings central to its reasoning are no longer in place–and, regardless, Rostker was wrongly decided at the time and out of step with our sex discrimination jurisprudence.

3. The Selective Service Act discriminates on the basis of sex in its plain text: it requires “males” to register for the draft, but not “females.” The fact that the Government has interpreted the word “males” to include both cisgender men and transgender women does not lessen the fact that the statute discriminates on sex.

4. Because the Act discriminates on the basis of sex, it is subject to intermediate scrutiny, which it does not survive.

5. The Government has not met its burden of demonstrating that it has an “important governmental objective” advanced by the Act. The interests it proffers–administrative efficiency and the preservation of gender roles–are unsatisfactory. An interest in “administrative efficiency” here is not borne out by the evidence and it is not clear that such an interest can constitute an “important governmental objective.” Similarly, there is no legitimate, let alone important, government interest in preserving traditional gender roles.

6. Even if there were an “important governmental objective” implicated here, the Act is not “substantially related” to it. First, the draft is not limited to combat roles, rendering concerns about “fitness for combat” irrelevant. Second, a significant proportion of women are capable of passing the military’s current tests designed to assess fitness for combat.

7. The Act does not discriminate on the basis of gender identity. Though some transgender persons are required to register by the Act, a substantial proportion are not. Moreover, they are not required to register because they are transgender; those required to register are required to register because they fall within the Government’s definition of the term “male.”

####CHEATEM, J., files a concurring opinion

1. The weight of precedent compels the conclusion that the Act impermissibly discriminates on the basis of sex.

2. The Court should revisit the standard it applies to sex discrimination because (1) sex is not “immutable” as required by In FDA Blood Donation Guidance and Related Regulations (“Assorted Homosexuals”), No. 20-02, 101 M.S.Ct. 115 (May 2020); and (2) the Court in Assorted Homosexuals erred in determining that all immutable characteristics are subject to heightened scrutiny.

Full Opinion

De gustibus non est disputandum,

/u/dewey-cheatem,

Associate Justice

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

lily-irl, Petitioner
vs
Adith_MUSG, in his official capacity as President of the United States, Respondent

#I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED

A. Does Executive Order 13998 exceed the authority conferred by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 USC ch. 15) on the Secretary of Labor to make rules about workplace safety?

B. Does Executive Order 13998 violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

II. RELEVANT DOCUMENTS

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

• Executive Order 13998: Safer Terminations Of Pregnancies
• Executive Order 13994: Right to Life

LAWS

• 29 USC 653
• 29 USC 203
• 29 USC 212

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

• Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113

#III. BACKGROUND

On 28 December 2021, President Adith_MUSG issued Executive Order 13998, ordering the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate a rule under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. This rule would make providing abortions an illegal violation of the OSH Act, unless the safety of the unborn child could be guaranteed. The Executive Order holds that an unborn foetus is alive under the terms of Executive Order 13994, which directs the federal government to recognise foetuses as alive after the detection of a heartbeat.

#IV. ARGUMENT

##A. THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES LACKS THE AUTHORITY UNDER THE OSH ACT TO PROMULGATE THE RULE

The Occupational Safety and Health Act only provides for rules to be made in relation to the health and safety of employees. See 29 USC 653(a):

(a) This chapter shall apply with respect to employment performed in a workplace in a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, Lake Island, Outer Continental Shelf lands defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act [43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.], Johnston Island, and the Canal Zone. The Secretary of the Interior shall, by regulation, provide for judicial enforcement of this chapter by the courts established for areas in which there are no United States district courts having jurisdiction. [Emphasis added]

Unborn foetuses are not employees. Holding they are would be problematic for many reasons, not least because this would constitute child labour. See 29 USC 203(l).

(l) “Oppressive child labor” means a condition of employment under which (1) any employee under the age of sixteen years is employed by an employer (other than a parent or a person standing in place of a parent employing his own child or a child in his custody under the age of sixteen years in an occupation other than manufacturing or mining or an occupation found by the Secretary of Labor to be particularly hazardous for the employment of children between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years or detrimental to their health or well-being) in any occupation…

Which is, in turn, criminalised under 29 USC 212.

Effectively, the President attempts to ban abortion under a law made to protect workers in the workplace. If the Court accepts that foetuses are human, it is clear that they are not employees. Accordingly, the proposed rule should be held ultra vires to the Executive’s rulemaking authority.

##B. THE RULE IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL INFRINGEMENT ON A PERSON’S RIGHT TO AN ABORTION

The Court has long recognised that there is a fundamental right to an abortion guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Roe v. Wade at 164. The rule, if allowed to go into force, would in fact exceed the strictness of the Texas abortion law overturned by Roe in 1973. There is no exception provided by this rule for the life of the mother, nor in cases of rape or incest. It would create a blanket ban on abortion throughout the United States. It is clearly unconstitutional and violates the rights recognised by the Court in Roe.

Accordingly, if not held ultra vires under the OSH Act of 1970, it should nevertheless be held unconstitutional.

Respectfully submitted,

/u/lily-irl.

Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 9 posts:

• "Happy Cakeday, r/modelSupCourt! Today you're 6" by u/AutoModerator
• "Announcement from the Court in No. 20-21: Joyner v. United States" by u/CuriositySMBC
• "Announcement from the Court in No. 21-03: Atlantic Commonwealth v Commonwealth of Greater Appalachia" by u/Ibney00
• "In re: 18 US Code Chapter 228" by u/hurricaneoflies
• "In re: Executive Order 13987" by u/hurricaneoflies
• "Atlantic Commonwealth v Commonwealth of Greater Appalachia" by u/lily-irl
• "Sierra ex rel. HurricaneofLies v. GoogMastr et al." by u/hurricaneoflies
• "Announcement from the Court in No. 21-01: The Republic of Freemont, et al., v. United States" by u/bsddc
• "Smith v Twitter, Inc." by u/Spacedude2169

I, sitting by designation, issue the following Memorandum Opinion and Order regarding the civil contempt proceedings from the ongoing case In re: Selective Service Act.

No. 21-05: IN RE: SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM -Contempt Proceedings-

Comes contempt proceedings in No. 21-05, arising from a challenge to Selective Service System of the United States.

Abstract

Associate Justice Bsddc issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order, sitting by designation.

1. I hereby ADJUDGE AND DECREE that PRESIDENT ADITH_MUSG is GUILTY of CONTEMPT before this Court.

2. He may PURGE this determination by either (1) submitting appropriate briefing defending the Selective Service Act, or (2) appointing counsel in this matter who shall then be subject to this Court’s contempt power.

3. Having ADJUDGED AND DECREED that PRESIDENT ADITH_MUSG is GUILTY of CONTEMPT before this Court, I hereby ORDER terms of coercive civil remedies as described fully in my Order, including:

• Monitoring by GPS ankle bracelet by the US Marshals;

• Civil confinement in the White House (more fully elaborated in my Order); and

• The President must, while making public appearances in the White House, wear a red letter "C."

Full Memorandum Opinion and Order

So Ordered,

/u/Bsddc,

Associate Justice

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court,

Pursuant to Rule 4.8, Petitioner, Misogynists United, by and through its ACLU counsel, files the following petition for a writ of certiorari in Google Document format.

Petitioner challenges the Military Selective Service Act and the enacting regulations (jointly "the Selective Service System") on the basis that the male-only draft unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of sex and gender identity in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, as incorporated by the Fifth Amendment.

###Petition for Certiorari

Respectfully submitted,

/u/hurricaneoflies

Attorney for Petitioner

###The Supreme Court of the United States of America

The application for admission to practice at the bar of the Supreme Court is hereby opened.

#####Application Details

• This application is open to any Model U.S. citizen without criminal conviction and otherwise in good standing.

• There are 15 total questions regarding the Rules of Court, legal research skills, and arguments in the Supreme Court context. An applicant must score a 14 out 21 possible points for admission to the Supreme Court bar.

• Verification of submission of an application shall be made herein through a top-level comment stating "I have submitted my application." Applications not verified will be considered incomplete.

• Any questions regarding the administration, but not the content of the examination, should be directed by PM to Justice /u/Bsddc.

• As a reminder, the examination is open book and research is highly encouraged. The only resource not open to applicants is discussions with others.

• Discussion of the contents of the exam is grounds for permanent disbarment. Only verifications should be posted in this thread.

• There is no end date for this examination at the moment. Once an end date is decided, it will be announced in advance of the exam window closing.

• The application can be accessed here. Please read the instructions carefully. Answers must be submitted here.

Best of luck to all applicants in the admissions process!

Bsddc, Associate Justice

###The Supreme Court of the United States of America

Consistent with the Court's December 2020 Announcement, NOTICE IS HEREBY PROVIDED that today will be the last day that applicants may take the December 2020 Bar Examination for admission to the bar of this Court.

We will be releasing a new Bar Examination shortly. As with the previous exam, we will provide for rolling admissions.

Bsddc, Associate Justice

The Court has finished careful, or careless depending on your point of view, deliberations on the matter of a petition from the ACLU seeking to have capital punishment ruled unconstitutional for reasons it being per se "cruel and unusual" as well as "wanton and persistent racially disparate impact[s]".

After much consideration and a birthday party for the Chief, the Court issues the following judgment in this matter.

#No. 21-03: ACLU v. United States

Comes No. 21-03, a challenge to lawfulness of capital punishment.

#Abstract

####IBNEY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court which DOBS and CURIOSITYSMBC, JJ., join, which JJEAGLEHAWK, J., joins except to the “Anglosphere” and “Anglo-American” limitations of Part III, which CHEATEM, J., joins only as to footnote 9 and the penultimate paragraph of Part IV, and which BSDDC, J., and SHOCKULAR, C.J., join only as to footnote 9.

1. The United States governs its practices and administration of Criminal Justice under an ever evolving standard of decency as articulated in Trop v. Dulles 356 U.S. 86 (1958).

2. The federal imposition of the death penalty under the three main measures of instruction -- the peoples opinion expressed via their legislatures, the deterrence factor of its imposition, and the international communities position and instruction on the matter -- has drastically changed since the ruling of Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).

3. Accordingly, the death penalty is not consistent with the evolving standards of our liberal democracy, and is thus held unconstitutional.

4. Disparate impact is not cognizable under the Fifth Amendment. No compelling statistical evidence exists for the conclusion that a race based disparity is present in the federal death penalty pursuant to the court's ruling in Assorted Homosexuals v. Food and Drug Administration 20-02 M. S. C. 115 (2020).

####JJEAGLEHAWK, J., files a concurring opinion, joined by CHEATEM, J., as to the first two sentences of the second paragraph and the first three clauses of the third sentence of the second paragraph.

####CURIOSITYSMBC, J., files a concurring opinion, joined by CHEATEM, J., as to the final nine words of the final sentence of Part I.

####BSDDC, J., files a dissenting opinion, fully joined by SHOCKULAR, C.J., and joined by CHEATEM, J. except as to footnote 19, the last sentence of the third paragraph of Part I, the fourth paragraph of Part II, and the third paragraph of Part III, and joined by JJEAGLEHAWK, J., as to the second paragraph of “Western Imperial Thinking” in Part II(E)2).

1. The text of the Constitution explicitly and specifically contemplates the availability of the death penalty. Accordingly, it cannot be unconstitutional under a more general prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment."

2. History and tradition both indicate that capital punishment is, and has always been, constitutional.

3. The Court radically departs from precedent by holding the death penalty unconstitutional. It does so in party by applying the wrong standard--the "evolving decency" standard, which governs application of the death penalty, not the constitutionality of the death penalty itself.

4. The Majority opinion misapplies the "evolving decency" standard itself by discounting the fact that the federal government employs the death penalty and by considering only "Anglosphere" nations and "liberal democracies" in its international law analysis.

5. The Court concludes by admitting “ this Court is made of fallible humans, tending towards failure, and often unable to fully comprehend the full impact of their actions until many years down the line.” I completely agree. And, therefore, I respectfully dissent.

####CHEATEM, J., files a dissenting in part, fully joined by BSDDC, J., and joined by SHOCKULAR, C.J., as to Parts I, III, and IV.

1. The Majority not only overturns longstanding precedent upholding the constitutionality of the death penalty but fails to consider the twelve factors relevant to retaining or overturning precedent, thereby breaking with our precedent across all areas of law.

2. The Majority's failure to consider retributive justice impliedly banishes that principle from our jurisprudence; instead it relies exclusively on the principle of deterrence. This is a moral outrage and, again, a departure from well-settled law.

3. Assorted Homosexuals did not recognize disparate impact claims under the Fourteenth Amendment or Fifth Amendment. The Majority rightly rejects Petitioner's urgings to make disparate impact claims cognizable under the Constitution's equal protection principle but errs in focusing unduly on the supposed lack of evidence in support of Petitioner's claim. Rather, the flaw in the claim lies in its lack of support from our precedent and conflict with the text of the Constitution.

####SHOCKULAR, C.J., files a dissenting opinion in part and concurring as to footnote 9, fully joined by BSDDC, J., and joined by CHEATEM, J., except as to the first five sentences of the first paragraph, the words "respectfully (and regretfully)" in the last sentence of the first paragraph, the first clause of the seventh sentence of the second paragraph, and the first two sentences of the third paragraph.

1. While the death penalty is misguided and immoral, it is explicitly allowed by the Constitution, and thus the Court’s decision today, though well meaning, is a dereliction of duty.

2. Especially concerning is the Court’s lack of respect for the basic tenets of stare decisis and complete disregard for the text of the Constitution.

3. The Court’s reliance on unanimity of the states is misguided given the massive overhaul to our government structure earlier this year, and the fact that all of those states happen to be controlled by one political party.

Full Opinion

Memento mori

/u/CuriositySMBC,

Associate Justice

The court has determined to issue a Per Curiam opinion in today's case. The Opinion is unanimous.

No. 21-03: THE ATLANTIC COMMONWEALTH v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF GREATER APPALACHIA

Comes now No. 21-03, a challenge to Executive Order 16 of The Governor of the Commonwealth of Greater Appalachia, which restricts the movements of the citizens of the United States crossing from Greater Appalachia by motor vehicle into the Atlantic Commonwealth.

###Per Curiam

On June 19th, Governor Goog Mann issued Executive Order 16: Restrictions on Travelers From the State of Atlantic. The Executive Order halted the movement of all "cars crossing the boarder [sic] of Greater Appalachia in [The] Atlantic" as well as authorized police to restrict the movement of United States Citizens.

Under the Privileges and Immunities clause, all citizens of the United States are entitled to freedom of movement between several states and territories. Freedom of movement, as defined in Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869) is the "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." Because Governor Goog has restricted the movements of citizens, he is in violation of the privileges and Immunities clause.

Additionally, under the courts holding in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970), any state statutes or orders which have a negative effect on interstate commerce are afforded heightened scrutiny under Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine. A scrutiny which this order, on its face, does not satisfy. See In re: Department of Justice Directive 036

We additionally find the opinion of the Sierra State Court in in re: Executive Order 28: To Zion instructive in this matter. "No." See also No - spray bottle (last accessed June 20, 2021)

We grant certiorari, find in favor of the plaintiff, and enjoin enforcement of Section 1 of Executive Order 16 or similar actions.

So Ordered

The Atlantic Commonwealth, Petitioner
vs
The Commonwealth of Greater Appalachia, Respondent

#####QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether Executive Order 16 of the Governor of the Commonwealth of Greater Appalachia violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause, Article IV, section 2 of the United States Constitution.

#####BACKGROUND

On 19 June 2021, Governor Goog Mann of the Commonwealth of Greater Appalachia issued Executive Order 16, entitled “Restrictions on Travelers From the State of Atlantic”, which directs the State Police to deny cars registered in the Atlantic Commonwealth access to Greater Appalachia. It further directs police to deny entry to those suspected of residing within the Atlantic Commonwealth.

#####ARGUMENT

The denial of free movement between the states is a clear violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, which provides that “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” This Court has recognised as far back as 1869 that the free movement into another state is plainly protected by this clause. “It was undoubtedly the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States [...] it inhibits discriminating legislation against them by other States; it gives them the right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them”. Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869).

The Court was clear then as to what constituted impermissible assaults on the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States. It ought to be just as clear now. Greater Appalachia’s Executive Order plainly violates the right of the residents of the Atlantic Commonwealth to have “free ingress into other States”. As such it is inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States. Petitioner respectfully asks the Court strike it down.

Respectfully submitted,

/u/lily-irl
Counsel for Petitioner

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court,

Pursuant to Rule 4.8, Petitioner, the American Civil Liberties Union, files the following petition for a writ of certiorari in Google Document format.

Petitioner challenges chapter 228 of title 18, United States Code, which comprises the federal death sentencing statutes, on the basis that the death penalty as practiced by the federal government is repugnant to the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

###In re: 18 US Code Chapter 228

Respectfully submitted,

/u/hurricaneoflies

/u/Notthedarkweb_MNZP

Attorneys for Petitioner

The Court has deliberated considerably on The Republic of Freemont, et al. v. United States. Today we render a judgement and release a unanimous opinion in the matter.

No. 21-01: THE REPUBLIC OF FREMONT, THE GREAT STATE OF DIXIE, THE STATE OF SUPERIOR, and THE COMMONWEALTH OF GREATER APPALACHIA v. UNITED STATES

Comes No. 21-01, a challenge to Executive Order 13987, which imposed conditions related to immigration enforcement on grant funding for states and municipalities.

Abstract

Associate Justice Bsddc delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court.

1. Under the voluntary cessation rule, this case is not moot because the recurrence of 13987 is possible. Non-recurrence is not “absolutely clear” in this case.

2. Consistent with the principles of bicameralism and the Take Care Clause, the President does not possess a free standing power to condition any federal spending. Instead, Presidential conditions must be based on the text or reasonable application of a statute.

3. Statutorily based Executive conditions on spending are subject to the Dole test regardless.

4. Executive Order 13897 was not subject to bicameralism, violates the President’s obligation to faithfully execute the laws, and flunks the Dole test. It is accordingly held ultra vires and unlawful.

Full Opinion

The Court's business continues.

/u/Bsddc,

Associate Justice

The Republic of Fremont, the Great State of Dixie, the State of Superior, the Commonwealth of Greater Appalachia, Petitioners,

v.

NinjjaDragon, President of the United States, Respondent

###QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the President acts ultra vires his powers in directing the impoundment of state funds in violation of the Impoundment Control Act, the Take Care Clause, and the Tenth Amendment.

###INTRODUCTION

Petitioners, four of the several states of the United States, bring this action against NinjjaDragon in his official capacity as President of the United States to challenge the validity of Executive Order 13987 as an ultra vires enactment in violation of the Impoundment Control Act (2 U.S. Code § 684), the Take Care Clause, and the Tenth Amendment.

Petitioners, either directly or through their instrumentalities (i.e., local governments), maintain a wide variety of policy positions regarding immigration enforcement, some of which likely conflict with the administration's interpretation of the Order's sweeping language. Consequently, each Petitioner would individually suffer grievous financial harm from the enforcement of the policy enumerated in the Order.

###REASONS TO GRANT CERTIORARI

A. The President plainly violates his mandatory duty to disburse Congressionally authorized funds.

The Order orders various Cabinet departments to "ensure that all sanctuary states and cities [...] are deemed ineligible to receive any grants issued by the federal government" (emphasis added). This constitutes an unambiguous order to withhold all Federal financial assistance from states and municipalities which the President has subjectively and capriciously determined to violate federal immigration priorities.

This condition is plainly invalid because the President is statutorily and constitutionally prohibited from impounding funds which the Congress has ordered disbursed pursuant to its sole command of the public purse. See, Lincoln v. Gunnz, 101 M.S.Ct. 114 (2020), at part III ("...appropriating funds for Federal grants is among the most fundamental of Congressional powers"). See generally, U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 1 ("No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law").

When Congress directs that funds be disbursed to the States without condition, it imposes a mandatory duty on the executive to comply. Indeed, this principle is so fundamental to Congress' intent that it has been statutorily incorporated by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which clearly states that "[no] officer or employee of the United States may defer any budget authority for any [...] purpose" other than that enumerated by the statute.

The statutory mandate is reinforced by the President's constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, a duty which this Court has recently characterized as "his fundamental obligation under the Constitution." In re Reforms to Immigration Agencies, 101 M.S.Ct. 118 (2020), at part I. In defying a congressional mandate to disburse funds to the states, the President has breached the Take Care Clause.

As this Court has recently pronounced:

As distasteful as it may be to provide funds to a State and Executive with whom the President disagrees ideologically, he is Constitutionally bound to do so, unless Congress expressly provides the President with discretion otherwise.

Gunnz, supra, at part III.

B. The Order's conditions are unconstitutionally coercive.

And regardless of whether the President unconstitutionally intruded into the domain of Congress, the conditions attached by the Order to the disbursement of federal funds are unconstitutionally coercive.

Under clearly established Tenth Amendment case law, the power of the federal government to attach conditions to state financial assistance is not unlimited. Instead, grant conditions must be promotive of the general welfare, unambiguous, constitutional, and related to a federal interest. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207-8 (1987). Moreover, while Congress may apply moderate pressure, the condition cannot be coercive as to constitute a "gun to the head" of the states. NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 581 (2012).

The President's directive to withhold all federal grants from states and localities utterly fails nearly every single prong of the Dole test.

First, the condition does not promote the general welfare because Congress, which is the sole competent body to make that determination, has not approved the condition. "When money is spent to promote the general welfare, the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by Congress." Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 645 (1937).

Second, the condition is entirely ambiguous because it was invented by the President from thin air without notice or consent. It is well-established that "[t]he legitimacy of Congress' power to legislate under the spending power [...] rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the contract." Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17 (1981). Here, no state or locality has ever consented to the President's terms as a precondition for the receipt of grants.

Third, the condition is inherently unconstitutional because it prohibits states from "extending programs designed explicitly for citizens and otherwise legal residents to all illegal immigrants," in reference to Dixie's expansion of its state-run health service benefits to undocumented persons. Prohibiting the states from lawmaking within their inherent police power to extend state-run services to undocumented immigrants violates the anti-commandeering doctrine and, by consequence, the Tenth Amendment. See generally, Murphy v. NCAA, 584 U.S. __ (2018).

Finally, and most egregiously, the condition attached by the Order is the epitome of a coercive 'gun to the head'. As this Court has explicitly held, "[t]he threat of losing all federal funding is also clearly very coercive. Such a penalty would be disastrous for the State and its residents." Gunnz, supra, at part II. Moreover, almost none of the targeted grants relate in any way to immigration, clearly suggesting the coercive nature of the condition. See, Sebelius, supra, at 580 ("When, for example, such conditions take the form of threats to terminate other significant independent grants, the conditions are properly viewed as a means of pressuring the States to accept policy changes.").

###CONCLUSION

Petitioners request declaratory judgment that Executive Order 13987 violates the Impoundment Control Act, the Take Care Clause, and the Tenth Amendment, a permanent injunction against its enforcement, and all other legal or equitable relief that the Court deems appropriate.

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

/u/hurricaneoflies

Counsel for Petitioners

Office of General Counsel, Executive Department, Rep. of Fremont

The Court has finished long deliberations on the matter of an appeal from a lower court seeking to invalidated evidence obtained via a warrant-less use of facial recognition software and to free one Mr. Joyner convicted using such evidence.

After much consideration and two lost fingers, the Court issues the following jolly judgment in this matter.

#No. 20-21: Joyner v. United States

Comes No. 20-21, a challenge to lawfulness of facial recognition software in an active investigation without a warrant

#Abstract

####JJEAGLEHAWK, J., delivers the opinion of the Court, except for part IV(D). SHOCKULAR, C.J., and CURIOSITYSMBC, J. join the opinion in full. BSDDC, J., joins the opinion except for Part IV(D). DOBS, J., joins the opinion except for Parts IV(B)-(D) and Part V. CHEATEM, J., joins the opinion as to footnote 1 and as to Part II only.

1. "Petitioner essentially argues that Mr. Joyner had the same reasonable expectation of privacy as one would have in the anonymity of a crowd"

2. "Government argues that Mr. Joyner cannot claim any reasonable expectation of privacy in a governmental record (mugshot) or publicly posted information (publicity photograph)."

3. "Mr. Joyner had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the particular mugshot and publicity photo used to identify him, and that therefore no “search” (for Fourth Amendment purposes) occurred in his case."

4. "[W]e believe that a search likely did occur in this case, and there are undoubtedly plaintiffs that have a cause of action against the law enforcement entities that violated their Fourth Amendment rights in this case and other similar law enforcement searches of electronic databases"

5. "[F]urther explanation, analysis, and guidance is warranted to clarify this Court’s long-standing Fourth Amendment jurisprudence."

6. We conclude that the contents of the database were not “searched” as they relate to Mr. Joyner. The Court thus AFFIRMS the judgment of the Court below.

####SHOCKULAR, C.J., files a concurring opinion, with which JJEAGLEHAWK, and CURIOSITYSMBC, J., joins.

1. "[I] write separately to further discuss the allegations in Justice BSDDC and Cheatem’s concurrences that we are acting as a legislature, and to further explain why a factor analysis is the most beneficial path forward in cases of this nature."

2. "Justice Dobs appears to claim that there was a search here because some people were likely searched. The question is not whether someone was searched, though, but whether Joyner was searched. Justice Dobs suggests that he was, but can identify no protected area or sphere that was searched."

3. "[I]t may well be that the Ninth Amendment grants additional protections against inappropriate invasions of property by the government, that issue was not briefed, nor does any participant ask us to find such a right."

4. "Our attempts at bright line rules in this area have often proved archaic and unfeasible in light of advancing technology. The correct path forward in this situation is an honest answer of “it depends.”"

####CURIOSITYSMBC, J., files an opinion concurring in the judgment of the Court, joined by the ghost of Christmas future.

1. Statistics about the accuracy of the facial recognition software at best tell us very little about how trustworthy the software is and at worst hide flaws that may raise future EPC concerns.

####BSDDC, J., files an opinion concurring in the judgment of the Court, which IBNEY, and CHEATEM, JJ., join.

1. "Tthe Fourth Amendment only protects reasonable expectations of privacy. All information used against Alex Joyner in the trial court was publicly available."

2. "This case is not about mass surveillance. And it is not about privacy. At no point was Joyner’s reasonable expectation of privacy specifically invaded. And while it may be tempting to transfigure this case into one about privacy and surveillance, we must resist the urge to do so"

3. "[T]he call to “refine” or “explain” or “clarify” data privacy through the lens of the Fourth Amendment is tempting. But that’s not this case at all."

4. "A court’s inquiry in this context should be simple and meant only to answer whether the suspect reasonably thought their data was private."

5. "The dissent’s approach would overturn essentially all of our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence in ways we cannot possibly imagine and in ways that are not presented in this case—annihilation."

####CHEATEM, J., files an opinion concurring in the judgment of the Court, which IBNEY00, J., joins and which BSDDC, J., joins as to Part I.

1. "There was no search, so there is no Fourth Amendment concern. That is the end of the Fourth Amendment analysis and, therefore, ought to be the end of the Plurality opinion."

2. "Ninth Amendment has been wrongfully omitted from the legal analysis by both the parties and the Court today. It is the Ninth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that protect what the Court today styles as a Fourth Amendment “right to privacy.”"

####DOBS, J., files an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by the ghost of Christmas past. We later fed him to the zoo animals.

1. "No matter how horrific the subject matter, we who practice law must always uphold it above all else."

2. "[T]he principle of crowd anonymity must, like many other items of 4th amendment jurisprudence, translate into the modern online world."

3. "[T]he plurality goes astray as soon as they make the assertion that Mr. Joyner was not searched and had no expectation of privacy because of the types of images found by law enforcement."

Full Opinion

Merry Christmas you filthy animals

/u/CuriositySMBC,

Associate Justice

Let's look back at some memorable moments and interesting insights from last year.

Your top 10 posts:

• "in re: The Constitution of the United States of America" by u/Zurikurta
• "Announcement from the Court in No. 20-20: Model Opinion Service vs. Hurricaneoflies" by u/SHOCKULAR
• "Announcement from the Court in Case 20-13 (In re Executive Order 002 Reform to Immigration Agencies)" by u/bsddc
• "Decision Announcement | Robert Carey v. Dixie Inn, LLC"
• "In Re: The Presidential Succession Act of 1947" by u/RestrepoMU
• "Announcement from the Court in No. 20-18: In Re: Presidential Succession Act of 1947" by u/SHOCKULAR
• "In re: Death Penalty Abolition Reaffirmation Act of 2019" by u/hurricaneoflies
• "Announcement from the Court in Case 20-08 (In re Executive Order 23)" by u/JJEagleHawk
• "US v. ZeroOverZero101" by u/CuriositySMBC
• "Joyner v. United States" by u/RestrepoMU

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court,

Pursuant to Rule 4.8, Petitioner, the State of Sierra, on the relation of Governor HurricaneofLies, files the following petition for a writ of certiorari in Google Document format.

###Sierra ex rel. HurricaneofLies v. GoogMastr et al.

PARTIES TO CASE

• The Petitioner is the State of Sierra, ex rel. HurricaneofLies, Governor of Sierra.

• The Respondents are Mr. Goog Mann (/u/GoogMastr) and the Democratic National Committee.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Petitioner prays for monetary damages in the amount of $750, or for treble damages in the amount of $2,250.

Respectfully submitted,

/u/hurricaneoflies

Governor of Sierra

Now comes Cypress Zairn, attorney in good standing, seeking an injunction against Acting Secretary of Defense Neat Saucer. The petition may be found below.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

I. Question Presented

1. Whether Sec. Neat Saucer's acting status violates 5 U.S.C. § 3345.

II. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

5 U.S.C. § 3345

III. Background

On September 7th, 2020, the Senate voted to confirm Neat Saucer's nomination to Deputy Secretary of Defense. Thereafter, following the resignation of Secretary of Defense Brihimia, Ms. Saucer was nominated to be Secretary of Defense on October 18th, 2020. The Senate has yet to confirm Ms. Saucer as Secretary of Defense, but she has recently acted within the confines of the Acting Secretary position.

IV. Argumentation

5 U.S.C. § 3345 provides that "a person may not serve as an acting officer for an office under this section, if—

(A) during the 365-day period preceding the date of the death, resignation, or beginning of inability to serve, such person—

(i) did not serve in the position of first assistant to the office of such officer; or

(ii) served in the position of first assistant to the office of such officer for less than 90 days; and

(B) the President submits a nomination of such person to the Senate for appointment to such office."

Here, we see that Ms. Saucer only served as first assistant—in this case, as Deputy Secretary—for just over forty days, from September 7th to October 18th, satisfying subsection (A). Additionally, President Dragon has nominated Ms. Saucer to the position which she claims to act in the vacancy of. As such, all actions taken by Ms. Saucer—including her recent BRAC response letter to the Senate and House—have been illegal.

V. Remedy

As Ms. Saucer lacks the authority to act as Acting Secretary of Defense, the Court should issue an injunction against all current and future actions taken by her in that role.

###The Supreme Court of the United States of America

The application for admission to practice at the bar of the Supreme Court is hereby opened.

#####Application Details

• This application is open to any Model U.S. citizen without criminal conviction and otherwise in good standing.

• There are 15 total questions regarding the Rules of Court, legal research skills, and arguments in the Supreme Court context. An applicant must score a 16 out 25 possible points for admission to the Supreme Court bar.

• Verification of submission of an application shall be made herein through a top-level comment stating "I have submitted my application." Applications not verified will be considered incomplete.

• Any questions regarding the administration, but not the content of the examination, should be directed by PM to Justice /u/Bsddc.

• As a reminder, the examination is open book and research is highly encouraged except for the essay. The Court has provided the materials for the essay question. The only resource not open to applicants is discussions with others.

• Discussion of the contents of the exam is grounds for permanent disbarment. Only verifications should be posted in this thread.

• There is no end date for this examination at the moment. Once an end date is decided, it will be announced in advance of the exam window closing.

• The application can be accessed here. Please read the instructions carefully. Answers must be submitted here.

Best of luck to all applicants in the admissions process!

Bsddc, Associate Justice

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court,

Petitioner files the following petition for a writ of certiorari in PDF format.

Joyner v. US

Respectfully submitted,

/u/RestrepoMU

Counsel of Record

October 23, 2020 Notice and Comment Request

The Supreme Court of the United States is providing notice and requesting comments regarding interest in an upcoming bar examination. The Court is currently preparing and scheduling the next Bar Examination. The Court spends hours preparing and administering a Bar Examination, which is typically limited to a single use. To preserve quality and determine scheduling, the Court needs to gauge interest in a new Bar Examination.

Therefore, the Court is requesting that persons who are not currently barred but are interested in taking a Bar Examination comment below that they are interested in applying for admission to the Supreme Court bar.

Questions can be directed to Associate Justice Bsddc.

In Pursuit of Justice,

Associate Justice Bsddc