Unofficial logo of the Walosian Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of the Walosian Empire is the highest judicial assembly and the highest national court in Walosia. Established by the Judicial Powers section of the Quintillus Constitution of 200BC, the Supreme Court has gone through centuries of change and modifications. Today, the institution functions with ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all lower courts, civil as well as military, over lower courts in questions involving national laws and over a small range of original jurisdiction, especially related to capital punishment. The Walosian Supreme Court has the final say in judicial disputes between individuals or Districts and when the legality of the constitution is called into question.
The Walosian Supreme Court is normally comprised of 50 Supreme Court Justices, of which ten will be appointed to the position of Chief Justice. The appointer of a Supreme Court Justice is each individual District Senate and the respective Judiciary Collegium, while the Chief Justices are nominated by the President and appointed with the consent of the Imperial Senate. Once appointed, each Supreme Court Justice has a tenure of 10 years unless they are removed, impeach of retire prior to their termination date. The Court meets in the Saint Antonia Court building adjacent to the Imperial Senate in the Senatorian Park, Waldovia.
Composition:
Size of the court:
The Walosian Supreme Court is comprised of 50 Justices, each elected by their Districts Judicial Collegium, a process that will be discussed shortly. The Walosian Constitution of 1991, the latest major ratification to the millennium old document, states that the composition of the Supreme Court shall not exceed the total number of Districts currently under Walosian authority. The Judiciary Act of 1992 set the number of Justices to 50 and limited the number of Chief Justices to 10. The act also states that each Justice shall maintain a judicial staff that is eligible to replace the sitting justice in a time of crisis, sick leave or retirement. The Chief Justice shall also oblige to this and the potential replacement are required the approval of the Imperial Senate upon succeeding to the seat of Chief Justice.
It is common to divide the Supreme Court into ten chambers, each under management by a Chief Justice. Judicial proceedings within the Supreme Court rarely requires the presence of more than 5 justices, this with a few exceptions, and each “chamber” are tasked with overseeing different cases. A few types of proceedings will require the assembly of “multiple chambers”, such as an Imperial Reviews (Death Sentence procedure) and the impeachment of a cabinet member/senate president.
Appointment and confirmation:
The Walosian Constitution states that the appointment of Supreme Court Justices is vested in the Judicial Collegium, a process in each District Senate in Walosia. The Judicial Collegium consists of a group of the 20 most senior judges in a District Court. The process of electing new members to the Supreme Court upon the termination of that Districts previous Justice seat-holder, the Judicial Collegium will elect among themselves a candidate to replace him or her. The elected representative from the Judicial Collegium is then appointed with the approval of the District Senate and set to succeed the previous holder of that District´s seat in the Supreme Court. Each District only maintains one seat. A District that has their Justice appointed to a Chief Justice is usually referred to as a Supreme Court District.
While the Judicial Collegium in each District elects the Supreme Court Justices internally, the responsibility to appoint a Chief Justice upon the termination or retirement of a Chief Justice lays with the President and the Imperial Senate. Upon the termination or retirement of a Chief Justice, that Supreme Court seat is reduced to a regular justice seat and that District´s Judicial Collegium appoints their respective replacement. The task of nominating a new Chief Justice is then given to the President, who will chose from the 41 Justices not currently in a Chief Justice position. It is common practice for a President to align their choice of Chief Justice nominee with their political viewpoints. Upon the selection of a candidate for Chief Justice, the Senate will debate and a vote will be held to officially confirm the individual in question. A Chief Justice nominee needs a 50% majority to be confirmed and the debate process is open to filibusters, should the minority feel the need to do so. The last successful filibuster of a Chief Justice nominee was the 2011 filibuster of candidate Gaia Katarina Maenius.
The process of electing a new candidate for a Supreme Court seat usually takes up to 2 months while the nomination, appointing and confirmation of a Chief Justice usually takes 2-3 months. Each Justice sits for a period of 10 years, upon each 5 years; half of the respective seats are up for election. A Chief Justice also has a tenure of 10-years, with one seat being up for election each year. A president set to serve one full term (4-year term) is expected to replace up to 4 Chief Justices throughout his or her term in office.
Membership:
Current Chief Justices:
The court is currently filled with ten Chief Justices, with the most recent being Chief Justice Gaia Martha Bagrationi, who was nominated by President Mark Galigan on February 9th 2019 and confirmed by the Senate on March 4th 2019.
| Name: | Born: Current date is 24. April 2019 | Appointed by: | Senate confirmation vote: | First day: | District represented: |
| Gaius Alexios Kornilov | September 7th 1972 (age 46) | Gaius Octavian Sextilius | 481 - 219 | September 17th 2010 | Fairhaven |
| Gaia Amalia Sallustius | June 8th 1948 (age 70) | Gaius Octavian Sextilius | 674 – 29 | March 26th 2011 | Baetica |
| Francois Mélenchon | April 1st 1961 (age 58) | Leroy Markus Jenkins | 790 – 19 | November 31st 2012 | Apollonia |
| Gaius Calpurnius Lepidus | January 3rd 1973 (age 46) | Leroy Markus Jenkins | 539 - 419 | December 1st 2013 | Nova Celtaria |
| Anicius Claudius Maximus | March 8th 1954 (age 65) | Leroy Markus Jenkins | 718 – 54 | March 9th 2014 | Waldovia |
| Leonardo Capritelli | July 9th 1946 (age 72) | Leroy Markus Jenkins | 482 – 419 | February 19th 2015 | Olympia |
| Gaia Octavia Laenius | September 9th 1979 (age 39) | Leroy Markus Jenkins | 938 – 3 | January 29th 2016 | Santiago |
| Katarina Ocheretnaya | May 1st 1968 (age 50) | Markus Galigan | 699 – 310 | August 6th 2017 | Ceronia |
| Anthony Lopez De Santos | December 11th 1973 (age 45) | Markus Galigan | 997 – 3 | July 8th 2018 | Palatina |
| Gaia Martha Bagrationi | April 23rd 1969 (age 49) | Markus Galigan | 883 – 102 | March 10th 2019 | Capua |
Court demographics:
The Walosian Supreme Court, as of April 9th 2019 is comprised of 33 men and 17 women justices. 28 of the justices are Latin-Etruscan, 12 are Logatian-Etruscan, 3 are Scandinavic-Etruscan, one is Germanic, one is Arabic-Etruscan, one is Persian, two are Novgorod-Slavic, one are Maldovian native and one is White Avignon-French, resulting in an ethically and culturally divers Supreme Court. 34 of the Justices consider themselves atheist (or agnostic), while the remaining 16 Justices adheres to a religion or spiritual movement. 9 Justices consider themselves Roman Pagans, 3 consider themselves Anglic-Christians, one a Slavic-Christian, two consider themselves Muslims (one Persian Muslim and one Arabic Muslim) and the last consider himself as an Indica Buddhist.
Of the 50 Supreme Court Justices, 48 maintains a Doctor Juris diploma (Doctoral Degree) from a public University while the remaining two has a Masters Degree in Jurisprudence from a similar University. The average age for a Supreme Court Justice is 58 years and 9 months and every Justice currently serving in the Supreme Court has previously been working in private practice, with most of them working directly with Criminal Law and prosecution. 43 of the Justices are currently married while the remaining 7 are either divorced or has never married.
Salary:
For the year 2017 – 2018, a Supreme Court Justice maintains an annual salary of 256.950 US dollars while a Chief Justice maintains an annual salary of 283.950 US dollars. There is no law currently in place to make lowering the salary of a judge illegal, it is however highly unpopular for a sitting president to suggest such a thing. The Supreme Court Justices, as well as the Chief Justices, both receive the standard Public Servant Pension as well as the more exclusive Supreme Court Justice Pension, which in all will provide the Justice with a pension not lower than the salary at their retirement.
Jurisdiction:
The Jurisdiction of the Walosian Supreme Court is directly outlined in the Walosian Constitution, Section on Judicial Powers. There are generally four criteria for a case to be brought up to the Supreme Court, of which at least one must be met.
1) If there is diversity of citizenship (meaning, the parties are citizens of different districts or countries, including foreign states) and that the amount of damage exceeds 100.000 US dollars.
2) If a court´s lower decision or ruling interferes with a national ruling or law, treaty or the Constitution itself as long as the ruling itself is not constitutionally committed to another branch of the national government.
3) If the Walosian Empire or any part of the Imperial Government is considered part in a case.
4) The case in question is a capital case, a legal procedure where the prosecutor has asked for capital punishment as a sentence in a criminal trial.
In addition to these requirements, the main objective for the Walosian Supreme Court is to function as the judicial section of the Walosian Imperial government and thusly to issue Constitutional Reviews of laws and legislations passed. A Constitutional Review is a procedure in which a Court Chamber of the Supreme Court reviews legislation passed by the Imperial Senate and evaluates its legality to the Constitution. A Court Chamber, under administration by a Chief Justice, are legally obliged to issue such a Review in cases where a legislation interferes with the Constitution or in any other way violates binding treaties signed and ratified by the Imperial Senate. In theory, only one Chamber Court is required to issue a valid Constitutional Review, as one Chamber consists of one Chief Justice and four associated justices. It is however the possibility of having such a Review brought up to a Grand Chamber session with three Chamber Courts (Three Chief Justices and 12 Associate Justices) and in rare circumstances in a plenary session with all 50 Justices.
Each Justice, a Chief Justice as well as an Associate Justice are considered a District Justice to their respective home District. Being a District Justice brings with it the responsibility to examine cases and evaluate legal disputes from lower courts in their region to view its potential for a review within the Supreme Court. The responsibility of a District Justice also includes applications that can be handled by a single Justice, such as cases involving special law enforcement permissions and writs of habeas corpus. The District Justice of Waldovia, currently Chief Justice Anicius Claudius Maximus, also maintains responsibility for cases involving the Walosian Armed Forces.
Process:
The Supreme Court operates on a constant basis, with each chamber operating with nine months in session and three months out of session. Two of the off session months are usually December and July with the remaining month disposable for each chambers members. During the nine months in session, each chamber operates with two types of session, an “audience” and a “recess”, with each session lasting four weeks. During “audience”, the chamber/chambers will hear oral arguments, conduct necessary legal reviews (Imperial and Constitutional) and hold trials. During “recess”, the chambers discuss oral arguments presented during the “audience” phase and present their conclusions and verdicts. The chambers will also review cases for examination and evaluate which cases that will be involved in the next “audience” session. Reviews, both Imperial and Constitutional, are not part of the “recess” session and any verdict in such a case will be presented during an “audience” session.
Selection process:
In matters both related to potential constitutional reviews and other types of cases eligible for a Supreme Court hearing are assessed and reviewed in the Supreme Court of Appeals, which is part of the “recess” session for each chamber. Following the specifications presented above, each chamber will review and debate potential cases and whether or not they should be given an official Supreme Court hearing. No citizen, organization or government institution has a right to a Supreme Court hearing, with the exception for Imperial Reviews in a trial involving capital punishment. As one Supreme Court Chamber includes 5 Justices, each a District Justice, the responsibility for eligible cases within those five districts fall to that Chamber. When the chambers responsible have chosen a selection of cases, they are up for approval by the “Session of Chief Justices”, in which all 10 Chief Justices will evaluate the presented cases. This usually takes one week as each Chamber is expected to present two cases.
Oral arguments:
Should the Session of Chief Justices approve a case for a Supreme Court hearing, the case is redirected back to the chamber that suggested it for evaluation. Regular court hearings and Constitutional Reviews all involves only one chamber, with a few exceptions, and all five justices have equal authority over the end conclusion. A regular Supreme Court hearing usually involves the five Justices and the two lawyers involved in the case, usually two defenders arguing on behalf of their clients. During a Constitutional Review, which follows the same principles as a regular hearing, the Imperial Senator/s involved in the legislation under scrutiny represents themselves and their cause, usually along with a legal expert as aid. During an oral argument, the justices can ask any questions they deem relevant to the case at hand. All such sessions are open to the public and usually televised and recorded, both for educational purposes as well as for general information to the public. Verdicts appealed from lower courts are subjugated to an oral argument session rather than an independent re-trial at the Supreme Court level, this again with a few exceptions.
Trials:
There are only three types of cases that warrant a Supreme Court trial procedure similar to that of the lower courts, a Capital Sentencing Trial (a trial where the defendant has been sentenced to death), when the Walosian Imperial Government, either the executive or the legislative branch, is part of a legal dispute and when an Imperial Senator, Supreme Court Justice or Cabinet member is trialed under impeachment. A Capital Sentencing Trial occurs when the Supreme Court appointed Imperial Review board rules the previous District Court verdict as a mistrial. A Capital Sentencing Trial is comprised of 10 Supreme Court Justices, where at least three are Chief Justices, and functions similarly to a District Court procedure. For a death sentence to stand; seven out of ten Justices must vote in favor and neither of the Chief Justices must use their absolute veto.
The second instance where the Supreme Court initiates a legal trial is either when the Imperial Government is considered part in a lawsuit appealed from a lower court or when there is a legal dispute between Districts or Districts against the Imperial Government. In this type of legal disputes, the trial is usually comprised of one single chamber with justices from other Districts than the ones involved. If the Imperial Government is part of a case against another District or organization, the District Justice from Waldovia is barred from the bench for that session. Should the Session of Chief Justices view the legal dispute to require the presence of multiple chambers, they can require the presence of three chambers (Triumvirate), five chambers (Grand Chamber) or all ten chambers (Plenary session).
The last type of trial held by the Supreme Court is an impeachment trial of a government official on the national level, including imperial senators, cabinet members (ministers), the senate president or a Supreme Court justice. This is one of the only types of trials where the decision to open a hearing falls not to the Justices themselves but to the Imperial Senate. An impeachment trial, no matter who is on trial, is comprised of 25 Supreme Court Justices, of which five must be a Chief Justice. Should a Chief Justice be on trial for impeachment, no Justices from his or her chamber can sit on the bench for that session.
Multi-chamber sessions:
Should the Session of Chief Justices view a case brought forth by a Justice to be of greater importance or of great controversy, they can require the presence of multiple chambers in the legal process. These “multi-chamber” sessions is comprised of the same principles as a trial, with the potential being three chambers (Triumvirate), five chambers (Grand Chamber) or all ten chambers (Plenary Session). The requirement for what type of cases that are eligible for a “multi-chamber” session is up to the discretion of the Chief Justices, however, as these types of cases tend to be more time consuming and resource demanding, they are considered quite rare. The last Plenary Session was held in 2009 (The Imperial Government v. Latin Union) to discuss whether or not Walosia violated international law in enforcing capital punishment.
A Triumvirate is a session in which three chambers are required to preside over a legal dispute, should it be a legal trial or an Oral argument in a legal dispute between two entities of the Walosian governments. Legal disputes between Districts is usually resolved in a Triumvirate session such as with the 1998 case “District of Akropolis v. District of Castillo” regarding a conflicting border between two major cities. A Grand Chamber is the rarer type in which five chambers are required to the proceedings and most legal disputes where the Walosian Imperial Government is part of a case, such as in the 2001 “Walosian Imperial Government v. District of Waldovia” regarding whether or not the Imperial Government could directly intervene in a District infrastructure project. The remaining type is a Plenary Session, the rarest type of legal proceeding within the Walosian Supreme Court. All ten chambers are here required for the proceedings as well as all Chief Justices. These sessions is usually reserved for the most controversial cases as it requires the entire Supreme Court to be official and thusly the entire workforce available.
“Recess” and legal conclusion:
During procedures at the “audience” session, it is customary for the Chamber/s to issue what is called “legal opinions”, which is a preliminary statement from the Justices on the case at hand. These opinions is usually structured with a “majority opinion” and a “dissent opinion, where the majority opinion represents the legal viewpoints of the majority of the Justices. These opinions are not legally binding, but instead a viewpoint of the Justices opinions on the matter at hand as well as a reference sheet for when the Justices will deliver the final Judicial Conclusion. The “legal opinions” are only used during Constitutional Reviews and Oral Arguments. During cases such as Imperial Reviews and the subsequent Capital Sentencing Trial and impeachment trials, the Justices usually refrain from issuing legal opinions.
The first phase of the “recess” session is committed to the internal review and debate of cases brought up to the chambers during the “audience” session. Both during Constitutional Reviews and during Oral Arguments and regular trials, the Justices debates the potential legal issues presented during the “audience” phase and deliver the final Legal Conclusion. A Legal Conclusion is the legally binding verdict for a case brought up to the Supreme Court and cannot be appealed further. Such a Legal Conclusion can be challenged internally within the Supreme Court between other chambers, but no appeal can be delivered from an external source. Just as with a Legal Opinions, the binding Conclusions are divided into a Majority Conclusion and a Minority Dissent. A complete edition of the conclusion, including the Majority and the Minority is delivered to the press by paper, as a tradition known as “Stop the Press”. Each Legal Conclusion is also printed in the weekly released “Judicial Review”, the largest news magazine in the field of law.
Landmark legal decisions:
This section will present a selection of the landmark legal decisions from the Supreme Courts modern history. The list will only present a few cases in the few categories listed, and listed categorically after date of Judicial Conclusion.
