Appeal: Pending In re [2026] FCR 20 | SCR 12

[ameslap]

Username: Ameslap (Solicitor General)

I am representing a client

Who is your Client?: The Commonwealth of Redmont

What Case are you Appealing?: [2026] FCR 20

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - IgnitedTnT v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 20

Basis for Appeal: See the brief attached.

Supporting Evidence:

 

[ameslap]

Brief

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
BASIS FOR APPEAL

The Commonwealth appeals the verdict in IgnitedTnT v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2026] FCR 20 on the grounds that the Federal Court erred in law and in remedy.

1. The Court erred by imposing civil liability on the Department of State for faithfully enforcing a duly enacted statute.​

The Department of State did not act outside of its legal authority; it applied Section 8(6) of the Electoral Act exactly as written. The alleged constitutional defect, if any, was in the law created by Congress, not in the Department carrying out that law.

Nevertheless, the Federal Court held the Department liable under the RCCA because the Department acted "under the colour of law" and intentionally applied the statute. That ruling creates a very dangerous standard that if an executive department faithfully enforces a law, it will become civilly liable if that law is later declared unconstitutional. That should not be the proper reading of the RCCA. It should require intentional or negligent deprivation of rights, not good-faith enforcement.

2. The Court improperly equated intent to enforce a statute with intent to violate constitutional rights.​

The Federal Court found intentionality because the Department knew that applying Section 8(6) would remove the Plaintiff from the ballot. But that is not the same as knowing or intending a constitutional violation.

The intent was to administer the election under the law. It was not attempting to harm the Plaintiff or knowingly deprive them of a constitutional right. The Department of State enforced a provision of the law that had not been deemed unconstitutional at the time of its enforcement.

3. The Court erred by treating Section 8(6) as an unconstitutional status-based disqualification rather than a reasonable election-administration rule.​

The right to run for office is important, but it is not without limits. The Constitution permits reasonable limits prescribed by law, and election laws almost always have eligibility clauses.

Section 8(6) can reasonably be understood as a structural rule designed to prevent sitting members from using special elections to create unnecessary vacancies. The statute does not punish someone for their identity; it regulates office-holding conflicts.

The Federal Court drew a distinction between "qualification requirements" and "status-based disqualifications", but that distinction is not clearly grounded in the Constitution. Many eligibility rules depend on a person's status, including holding citizenship, having a passport, and playtime requirements.

Relief Requested:​

The Commonwealth respectfully requests that the appellate court reverse the Federal Court's verdict, hold that good-faith enforcement of an enacted law does not create RCCA liability, and that Section 8(6) is indeed Constitutional as reasonable.