When a foundational institution faces decline, the response shouldn’t be removal, but revival. The current inactivity of the Supreme Court has been the catalyst for Marshall University’s Student Government Association to move toward abolishing the Supreme Court, operating under the assumption that the Judicial Branch is beyond recovery. However, students should understand the true cost of this removal: the loss of a neutral institution with the capacity to become a vital resource for the student body.
I am not a stranger to this debate. In fact, during the session where we voted on the proposed constitution last year, I was one of eighteen senators who voted in favor of the proposal. At the time, I believed an inactive Judicial Branch was unnecessary for a functioning student government, and I did not fully understand the value an empowered Supreme Court at Marshall could bring. If we were the final decision that day, there would not have been a second chance like we have now.
A Lack of Purpose, Not of Value
In coming to terms with why the Judicial Branch has been left in its dormant state, we must understand what the current responsibilities of the Supreme Court are. Under Article 5 of the SGA Constitution, the Judicial Branch’s responsibilities are few: the Court shall review all legislation passed by the Senate to ensure constitutionality, and it may be responsible for voting to expel a senator (after recommendation by the Senate Judiciary Committee).
Yes, a branch that is expected to meet every other week has been relegated to a mostly ceremonial job. While the Court has the power to expel senators, the only real trigger for an expulsion proceeding is due to lack of attendance, a rare problem that typically resolves itself through voluntary resignation before the Supreme Court is ever involved. The Court’s power to review all legislation is made meaningless by the pace at which resolutions are approved through committee and the full Senate in under an hour, robbing it of any real urgency or priority. Having no genuine responsibilities and serving merely as a rubber stamp, the Supreme Court has been rendered obsolete under the current framework.
The simplest answer might be to remove the Judicial Branch altogether. However, is that the best solution? Consider the responsibilities of the Supreme Court at other universities. For instance, at West Virginia University, the Court has the authority to mediate disputes involving student organizations, review electoral misconduct, and hear appeals from students on other branches’ decisions. Furthermore, at institutions like the University of Alabama and Southeastern Louisiana University, their Supreme Courts are specifically granted the authority to review non-academic student appeals, including parking tickets. This stands in stark contrast to the limited and ceremonial “review legislation” task at Marshall, which cannot sustain activity by itself.
The Transformation: Due Process and Administrative Appeals
Instead of removal, the most efficient solution is to transform the Court into the final source of procedural fairness for students. This would require granting the power to resolve disputes involving students or student organizations, including overseeing electoral appeals and acting as the final arbiter for administrative appeals where the issuing office serves as the final review board for students.
Students can specifically benefit from an empowered Supreme Court by reviewing the issue of parking tickets. Currently, if a student receives a parking ticket, the only possibility of recourse is through the very same office that issued the ticket: the Office of Parking & Transportation. Although appealing to the initial review board is necessary, the problem begins when that board, acting as both judge and jury, makes a final decision to reject your claim. Students deserve the right to present their case to an institution of their peers for a procedural appeal, guaranteeing that the board’s decision was made fairly and followed appropriate guidelines and due process. An empowered Judicial Branch could provide this essential impartiality.
While granting due process authority is a fundamental step, relying solely on administrative appeals would not guarantee sustainable activity. To ensure the Judicial Branch remains active and useful, it must take on at least two mandatory duties: conducting continual insight and review to identify vagueness or conflicts within the Student Code of Conduct and other university policies to request clarification, and authoring an annual opinion on all SGA governing documents (constitution and bylaws). These proactive duties ensure the branch remains continuously active, serving not only as an appealing body, but as a permanent source of critical oversight.
The proposed abolishment of the Judicial Branch isn’t just a change; it fundamentally compromises the democratic principle of checks and balances. The Executive Branch’s veto is the only remaining constitutional check for the Senate, but it is primarily a decision driven by the president’s opinion on a resolution, not as an impartial assurance of constitutionality. Even if the president chooses to veto, the Senate has the power to override the veto with a two-thirds majority vote. If the Senate can enforce the constitutionality of its own laws, then the constitution itself becomes merely a suggestion.
As the vote during Homecoming week approaches, I’ve realized the true problem with the Judicial Branch isn’t what it will not do, but what it currently cannot do. We must not make the mistake of assuming that tearing down declining organizations is always the best course of action. Instead, we should nurture our student opportunities here at Marshall, not diminish them. This Homecoming, a “No” vote on the proposed Constitution is not about opposing all change, but a commitment to strengthening democratic institutions and preserving the branch that can be transformed into a valuable resource for all students.
Mark Hysell is a junior majoring in history from Milton, West Virginia.
Hysell can be contacted at [email protected].
