Hearing

<@&1451887308512165898> If you wish to interject on the interpretation we have posted now is the time to do so. The Interpretation Response as of now is as follows:
```The petitioner is requesting the Supreme Court to interpret and provide a clear definition of Part 1, Section 10(1) of the Prosecution Act 2025.

MAJORITY OPINION.—
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Where provisions within the same law conflict, the Constitution must prevail over any inconsistent statutory provision.

In this case, the Court is asked to determine how a District Court Judge may conduct an interpretation hearing under Part 8, Section 10, Subsection 1 of the Prosecution Act 2025. We hold that a District Court Judge cannot conduct such a hearing.

First, Article 4, Section 4, Subsection 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court constitutional jurisdiction to hear and make determinations on the interpretation of legislation and its constitutionality. Article 4, Section 4, Subsection 2 further provides that this jurisdiction may not be delegated to a lower court.

The effect is clear: the Constitution reserves this jurisdiction to the Supreme Court.

Second, other provisions of the Prosecution Act 2025 conflict with the provision before the Court. Part 2, Section 2, Subsection 1 provides that the Supreme Court shall be used for any interpretation hearing. No equivalent provision exists in Part 2, Section 3, which pertains to the District Court.

Furthermore, Part 2, Section 2, Subsection 2 provides that a Supreme Court hearing shall contain 5, 7, or 9 Justices on the Bench. This further demonstrates that interpretation hearings are intended to be conducted by the Supreme Court and cannot be reconciled with a provision allowing a District Court Judge to conduct the same hearing.

Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy adopted by this Court, a statutory provision cannot authorize what the Constitution expressly reserves to the Supreme Court. Where such a conflict exists, it is the constitutional provision that controls.

Accordingly, in exercise of its constitutional power to determine the interpretation and constitutionality of legislation, the Supreme Court holds that the words “District or” appearing in Part 8, Section 10, Subsection 1 of the Prosecution Act 2025 are unconstitutional and are hereby struck down.

The remainder of Part 8, Section 10, Subsection 1 remains in force.

This interpretations majority opinion came from dreckly the Chief Justice, alongside Deputy Chief Justice Kelpti, Senior Associate Justice Steph,., Senior Associate Justice Faaaaiiitthh, Associate Justice Brokyy_, Associate Justice Inconclusive-, Associate Justice GreenArcher, Associate Justice saintpaulbb and Associate Justice Pawtistic.```