Judicial Review
Comments
MAJORITY OPINION.—First and foremost, the Defense (Intelligence and Lists) Resolution 2026 breaches the common framework on several occasions, such as in Part 1 where no provision is explicitly stated to amend the Defense Act 2026 (while it is in the part, parts are not "provisions of force", but rather used to "group sections together based on content"). Furthermore, the Secretary of Defense, by way of P6, S2 of the Defense Act 2025, does not possess the power to write standalone legislation – that is to say legislation that is not an amendment of the relevant act – only to "amend Parts 2, 3, and 4 via order via consent from the House of Representatives". (Except when issuing orders to add people/groups to the Ban on Sight and/or National Punishment lists.) Part 2 of this order contains "standalone enactments", which is to say provisions which are not directly amending, or amended into (i.e. schedules), the Defense Act 2025, but stands as separate provisions within the order.
Part 3, Section 3(3) (within schedule 2) states: "Breaking the oath is a Class A offense, however the information is shared. Due to the nature of the Agency, it may or may not be pursued through a trial." This could be misconstrued as to breach the right to a fair trial, considering it simply states "it may or may not be pursued through trial". It is clear, of course, that there are extra-judicial punishments that may be pursued, but with the lack of a clear procedure of how this would be dealt with, as an alternative to a trial is concerning, and the possibility of foregoing trials altogether is even more concerning.
WHEREFORE.—The Defense (Intelligence and Lists) Resolution 2026 is hereby declared INAVLID OF PARENT in its entirety, and is thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL and shall not take effect.
SO ORDERED.—Associate Justice .Martin delivered the opinion, in which Senior Associate Justice Inconclusive-, Deputy Chief Justice Kelpti, Associate Justices Pawtistic and Brokyy_ joined.