O'Halloran v. Georgienstine

O'Halloran v. Georgienstine
Court	Supreme Court of Georgienstine
Full case name	Addison O'Halloran v. Federal Government of the Federal Republic of Georgienstine
Decided	15 January 2023
Case opinions
Decision by	Matthew Tonna, Christoph Billung

O'Halloran v. Georgienstine was a case in the Supreme Court of Georgienstine decided on 15 January 2023 in which the court held in a 4-2 decision that the requirement of stating "so help me God" as part of the oath of office for incoming Representatives in the National Congress did not violate the Constitution of Georgienstine and freedom of religion.

The Oath Act, as presented in the National Congress.

Factual background

On 4 January 2023, Majority Leader Alexandre Olivier proposed O-17.1, or the "Oath Act", to the National Congress of Georgienstine. The bill would require by law that Representatives take an oath of office, which the bill also formally standardized, to take office. The standardized oath that the bill proposed was nearly the same oath that the National Congress had been using unofficially to swear in incoming Representatives, and included the phrase "so help me God" at the end of the oath. Soon after the bill was formally proposed on the same day, Addison O'Halloran submitted a lawsuit against the Georgienstinian Federal Government, alleging that requiring incoming Representatives to say "so help me God" to be able to take office was prohibited by the Georgienstinian Constitution, which guarantees the right of "Freedom of religion". In the suit, O'Halloran asked the court either to remove the clause requiring "so help me God" to be stated as part of the oath be removed from the bill, or that the court block that close from taking effect.

Procedural history

The case was accepted by the Supreme Court on 4 January 2023, and Chief Justice Matthew Tonna issued a notice of proceedings the same day, setting 7 and 8 of January as the days the court would hear the case. O'Halloran was listed by the lawsuit as her own attorney, and as Attorney-General, Nicolas Caiazzo was made counsel for the government.

Arguments

On 7 January, after inquiry into and subsequent delay of the formulation of arguments from both sides, Chief Justice Tonna let Justice Ben Olson hear arguments into the night. In the evening, O'Halloran delivered her argument to the court. In her argument, which was delivered over Discord in text, O'Halloran argued that the Oath Act was in violation of Article II, Section IV, Clause III of the Georgienstinian constitution, which affords citizens the right to "Freedom of religion", as well as arguing that the "so help me God" requirement violated freedom of religion as "it is impossible to prove except by anecdote one’s religious beliefs". O'Halloran went on to argue that the National Congress was not afforded the right to set its own standards for membership under freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article VI, Section II, Clause IV of the constitution, as the Congress is a public institution. In addition, O'Halloran argued that in its current for the oath is not required by the constitution and is simply a formality, so striking "so help me God" from the oath would not be unreasonable. As the final part of her argument, O'Halloran attested to the power of words and phrases as religious affirmations in religion, arguing that "requiring individuals to profess a false belief is a major infringement of personal sovereignty and spirituality".

Once O'Halloran finished her argument, Attorney-General Caiazzo was given permission to proceed with his argument. Caiazzo argued that the act barred Representatives from taking office on the basis of the recitation of the oath, and not on the basis of their religion, and that thus the act did not discriminate on the basis of religion. Caiazzo also argued that the act did not bar Representatives from the free practice of their religion and thus was still constitutional under freedom of religion. Caiazzo also claimed that to rule that the act violated freedom of religion would "set a dangerous precedent that any institution in [the government] which is not completely secular is in violation of [the Georgienstinian constitution] and impedes on the right to freely practice one’s religion, an incorrect assertion that would tear down other sacred institutions, customs, and traditions of [the federal government]". Finally, Caiazzo argued that the importance of phrases or affirmations in religion was not legally relevant to the constitutionalism of the act and should not be considered.

Following Caiazzo's argument, he was given permission to call witnesses for direct examination by Chief Justice Tonna on 8 January.