Vanita Marissen v. Ministry of Diplomatic Affairs et al. (Makko Oko)

Vanita Marissen v. Ministry of Diplomatic Affairs et al.
Court	Supreme Court, Opposh, NT, Makko Oko
Decided	TBD
Case history
Appealed from	Appellate Court of Appeals of Makko Oko
Subsequent action(s)	Appeals court judgement upheld, Slaves Act struck down and slavery prohibited for all nationally, slave status of plaintiff revoked, judgement against the government confirmed.
Case opinions
The court finds the government's actions untenable and against the concepts that the Constitution was created by. The court finds in favor of the plaintiff, keeping the original award amount and striking down the Slaves Act for going against articles 1, 22 and 23 of the Constitution and hereby prohibits slavery for all persons subject to the judgement of this court, and free any slaves such capable by order of this court. Appeals court judgement affirmed, judgement award issued.
Majority	Aponte, Graham, Gerlach
Dissent	Reynolds, Sullivan

Vanita Marissen v. Ministry of Diplomatic Affairs et al. is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of Makko Oko on XXX XX, 2027 on the constitutionality of a slaves' passport being seized by the Office of Slaves Affairs.

Background

The case began after Vanita Marissen, the plaintiff and slave, had requested from GCG Entertainment some time off to travel to Patolia for their birthday, however, after they declined, they filed a complaint with the Ministry of Diplomatic Affairs' Office of Slaves Affairs, who subsequently seized their passport and refused to give it back, with the director of the office, Jay Sicard, reportedly threatening the plaintiff with further punishment if they continued their complaining.

Decision

The court ruled 3-1-2 that the passport seizure was an unjustifiable and unconstitutional prohibition on the freedom of movement. The court went on to say that slavery as a concept went against what the Constitution sought to protect, and that its implementation openly discriminated in a way that violated not only the anti-discrimination clause but also the equal protection clause, therefore banning slavery nationally for all persons and striking down the Slaves Act with it. The ruling was in favor of the judgement handed down by the Appellate Court of Appeals, absolving GCG Entertainment of liability whilst punishing both the Ministry of Diplomatic Affairs and the Director of the Office of Slaves Affairs, Jay Sicard. Chief Justice Gerlach wrote the majority opinion.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Odell Reynolds wrote in his dissent that the original precedent of Kramer Evans et al. v. Ministry of Internal Security was still valid today, and that "the court is dangerously ruling in reinterpreting parts of the Constitution." He went on to clarify that a passport being seized is not anymore unconstitutional than it would be forbidding an incarcerated citizen from being able to buy whatever they wanted:

"The court is dangerously close to limiting how we can lock up our criminals. The government locks up criminals, essentially forbidding them from having the freedom to move wherever they wish, and they restrict your speech more than ever, they restrict what you can purchase and put you on a set regime. Seizing the plaintiff's passport is not anymore unconstitutional than anything presently specified. Slaves are still citizens, and they are still people, however the court does recognize the similarities of slaves to criminals, and their status in society. Slaves are now treated better than criminals are, when rather, it should be the other way around."

Justice Reynolds also cited that the ruling violates the rights of companies to collect debts, because now there is no legal punishment for not paying a debt and also briefly complained about how slaves work for free for a company to pay off a debt, and are not technically employees as they are not paid a wage, and said that therefore, they should have their passport seized when they enter servitude.

Justice Richard Sullivan also dissented, writing that slavery was legal under the doctrine of Christianity, which is constitutionally the state religion per Section 10 of the Constitution, and clarified saying that since Article 40 mandated that the government not infringe on the state religion, and slavery was a part of that religion, then no matter the issues in terms of freedoms, it was constitutional. He wrote that he was "concerned over the future of god in the nation":

"I take particular issue with this court in ruling against a doctrine of the state religion, in openly violating a core section of the Constitution, all the while writing that it violates a different part of the Constitution. It is a biased ruling, and an attempt to take god out of the nation, and out of the people. I am personally concerned over the future of god in our nation."

Effects

This case overturned the prior Supreme Court ruling Kramer Evans et al. v. Ministry of Internal Security which happened four years prior, striking down the Slaves Act in full and prohibiting slavery on a national level for all. It was the first case in the empire's history to reinterpret the rights outlined under the Constitution to be something greater than what is defined. It also changed the legality rule created under said precedent to establish a rationale requirement, meaning that in all future cases heard by both the Supreme Court and the lower courts, they must consider not only if the action/law is justified by the Constitution and other laws but also if it is justified by present-day norms and societal interpretations in other nations. There is also an optional rule in place that determines if an action or law is legal based on its effectiveness. Jay would resign after the ruling, citing "Failures of my image have led to a permanent stain upon my ministry that needs repair".

Finally, a test was created referred to as the Process of Rights Test which also establishes a rationale point of view on all cases dealing with freedoms and civil rights in a constitutional context for a non-citizen. The test came to be from the prohibition of slavery for all, as opposed to just citizens, due to the expansion of the freedoms outlined within it from this court. It helps to determine if a constitutional right is to be applied to non-citizens or not, however it could be applied to rights established under statute.