30 June 2026: Ending the month with a bang

Industry News

To help address the judicial backlog, President Multiman155 has nominated Superwoops and Dartanboy to become new federal judges. The President also announced Judge Muggy21's nomination for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and backfilled AG Superwoops's role by promoting AmityBlamity to Acting Attorney General.

Congrats to all on the new roles! If you have industry news to share, or if you'd like to advertise in the blog, DM budgetmich on Discord.

Now onto the cases.

Supreme Court

In re 2026 FCR 20 | 2026 SCR 12

By far the biggest development of the day was the Supreme Court's holding reversing the Federal Court's order striking down §8(6) of the Electoral Act. The Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Matthew100x, took a pragmatic approach, castigating the Federal Court for ignoring the practical impact of the Electoral Act's prohibition on contesting identical house seats. found a substantial Commonwealth interest in preventing "musical chairs" among legislators, an interest that heavily outweighed the plaintiff's interest in contesting a specific seat in the House identical to the one plaintiff already held in nearly every way. The Court further held that the appropriate standard of review for §8(6) was reasonableness. Finally, the Court addressed perhaps the most pivotal question: to what remedy is a plaintiff entitled when the executive violates their rights by faithfully executing a law passed by Congress? The Court did not issue an explicit rule, instead proposing that courts facing this question should analyze both the government's intent and the actual injury suffered by the plaintiff.

There were two concurrences, as well, the first a short one by Chief Justice Smallfries expressing distaste for the Duplicate Terms Act, a constitutional amendment passed in response to the Federal Court's ruling. The Chief Justice went on to rebuke the Federal Court's haste in declaring the statute unconstitutional, arguing that doing so led Congress to further bloat the Redmont Constitution.

The second concurrence, by Justice Matthew100x, dealt with the author's amicus brief. I don't pretend to be objective on this matter, though I find myself generally in agreement with his honor's ultimate conclusions, if not his use of my brief to reach them. My response to the derogation of my uses of outside authority is forthcoming. But for present purposes, suffice it to say that Justice Matthew100x was perturbed by my citation of real-life legal principles and proposed what I consider to be a reasonable rule, included in full below this blog, limiting those principles' use in the courts of Redmont. (Update 1 July: my response is here)

Counsel: Solicitor General Ameslap for appellant Commonwealth of Redmont; budgetmich1, pro se, as amicus curiae

Federal Court

Commonwealth of Redmont v. Town of Aventura, 2026 FCR 44

In this constitutional challenge to Aventura's The Other Commission an Artist Act, the Court denied Aventura's motion to dismiss and recalled its order that the Commonwealth show standing, as the statute's constitutionality remains a live issue. The Court, Judge Muggy21 presiding, also put forth several questions for the parties to answer in their briefing, which we'll be monitoring closely

That's all for today! Come back tomorrow for updates and these and all Redmont's cases.

Proposed Rule 1.12 — Real-Life Legal Authorities

(1) A party may not cite or rely on any real-life statute, case, regulation, treatise, legal encyclopedia, legal database entry, or foreign constitutional provision as binding authority, persuasive authority, or a proposition of law in Redmont court proceedings.

(2) A party may refer to a general legal concept drawn from outside Redmont only where:
(a) the concept is explained in the party’s own words;
(b) the argument is grounded in Redmont’s Constitution, statutes, court rules, precedent or other legal authority;
(c) the party does not ask the Court to adopt the outside jurisdiction’s doctrine as law; and
(d) the reference is able to be accessed without being paywalled.

(3) A party may cite real-life law only where:
(a) Redmont law expressly incorporates or refers to that outside source; and
(b) the Court grants leave for a narrow comparative-law purpose; or
(c) the source is used only as historical or factual background and not as authority.

(4) The Court may disregard, strike, or order refiling of any argument that relies on real-life legal authority in violation of this Rule.