High Court deals blow to government; strikes down 'arch religious statutes'.
3rd of December, 4360- In three separate cases that featured three different majorities, the court dealt a series of blows to a government that had spent much of the previous year and a half ironing out its religious and marriage policy.
The first case, filed in the District Court of Kathuristan as Zailkhadé v. Trifluz, dealt with the case of a local law passed since the enactment of Public law 6514, otherwise known as the Defamation of Religion Act; the city council of Arbék, aligned historically with the Hosian Church, had opted to pass laws excluding church goers from any penalties under the municipal version of the law, while heightening such penalties for members of the Ahmadi, Ruhi, and Felinist communities. Zailkhadé, an Abadi shopkeeper from a town within the wider Arbék metro area, filed suit once he became aware that he had been fined over 2,000 BAR under the law. He thus won his case within the District Court, yet failed to persuade the Court of Appeals, who ruled on 4-1 basis that it was not the place of the courts to "meddle with regional and local affairs". Once he took his case to the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice, Lazrjan, as well as the rest of the federalist bloc of the court seemed sympathetic to his plight, according to numerous court watchers. The result was a seven to four vote in favor of Zailkhade, with the two swing justices voting in the affirmative. Writing for the majority, Associate Justice Utrji stated that it was not "within the purview [sic}...of any legislature, nor any executive, to divine the religion of a person within the Republic. Their inspiration is their own."
The Court echoed a similar sentiment in the case of Hanaja v. Nrlshehré, in which a woman identified as Anne Hanaja was reportedly arrested in the early hours of the fourth of August, 4359, after telling an officer that she did not profess a belief in any diety and did not go to Church. On her behalf, her husband, Paul, sued the Federal government for discrimination and claimed that the section four of the law violated the constitution. The case was thus remanded to the District Court, who sided with the defendent in a 5-0 decision, and was on its way through the Judiciary before being briefly halted by the Court of Appeals, who stated that there was, quote "a non literal interpretation of the law". Mr. Hanaja did not wish to acquiesce to the decision of the Court of Appeals, and promptly filed a writ with the Supreme Court. Oral arguments occured throughout December of 4359 and into March of this year. Finally, in a six to five decision, the Court ruled that the government's legislation was unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, the Chief Justice stated that it was not "within the power of the state to force someone into prayer."
In the case of Nesher v. Nrlshehré, the plaintiff, Sena Nesher, filed a brief against the recently passed Recognition of Arranged Marriage Act. Under the law, she was forced by her family to marry her current husband, Stephen Hecr, whom she claims is both physically and emotionally abusive. The Court ruled in a ten to one decision that it was "Against the values of the Republic and the constitution...to force a woman into a type of slavery as described by this law".