Opinion of the Judiciary Morris v SGA No.26-0503E

JUDICIARY OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDENT GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION Syllabus JACKSON MORRIS, PETITIONER v. JOHNS HOPKINS STUDENT GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION (SGA) CERTIORARI TO THE JOHNS HOPKINS STUDENT GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION JUDICIARY No.26-0503 Argued April 3, 2025—Decided April 5, 2025 Note original publishing of this document on February 2nd, 2026 incorrectly indicated this case was argued April 23rd. Correction was released February 2nd, 2026. Petitioner alleges that t h e S G A failed to maintain an updated and publicly available system for students to inspect the minutes and proceedings of the SGA, which constitutes a violation of the SGA Constitution and Bylaws. Additionally, Petitioner alleges SGA meeting minutes for the Executive Cabinet, Class Programming Council, Senate Standing Legislative Committee, Committee on Student Elections, Judiciary Board, Policy Research & Development Commission (PRDC), Communications & Marketing Commission (CMC), and other SGA meetings are not accessible to the student body and thus constitute a violation of the SGA Constitution and Bylaws. Finally, Petitioner alleges the SGA fails to record votes on an individual basis, and argues this oversight constitutes a violation of the SGA Constitution and Bylaws. Respondents contend that all Executive Branch meetings have been “public” since September 2024, except for meetings limited by University leadership. Respondents assert a commitment to improving the SGA website, updating meeting notes, and periodically publishing voting records and attendance records. Petitioner Jackson Morris filed a petition for a writ of Certiorari to the SGA Judiciary on February 14, 2025. The Judiciary subsequently granted this petition on February 22nd and notified the respondents, SGA, of this fact on February 23rd. The SGA then submitted a refutation/response to this petition on February 27th, and the petitioner was sent this response. Following this process, the SGA selected Mr. Meng and Mr. Huang to be their representatives at oral arguments. After receiving availability from Mr. Meng, Mr. Huang, and Mr. Morris, the oral arguments date was set for Thursday, April 3rd, at 6:30 PM. Oral arguments were conducted in Wolman Hall multipurpose room with the option to attend via Zoom to accommodate Mr. Morris’ inability to attend in person. The hearing was attended only by Mr. Morris. Mazzanobile, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Note Justice Caitlyn Ramdat recused herself for all deliberations and proceedings of this case* Opinion of the Court JUDICIARY OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS STUDENT GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION No.26-0503 JACKSON MORRIS, PETITIONER v. JOHNS HOPKINS STUDENT GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION (SGA) ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE JOHNS HOPKINS STUDENT GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION JUDICIARY [February 2nd, 2026] CHIEF JUSTICE MAZZANOBILE delivered the opinion of the Court. I This case presents a dispute over the transparency and record- keeping of the SGA. Petitioner Jackson Morris contends that the SGA failed to keep meeting minutes up-to-date and publicly available. Additionally, that the SGA meeting minutes for the Executive Cabinet, Class Programming Council, Senate Standing Legislative Committee, Committee on Student Elections, Judiciary Board, Policy Research & Development Commission (PRDC), Communications & Marketing Commission (CMC), and other SGA meetings are not publicly available to the Johns Hopkins student body. And lastly, that the SGA fails to publicly record votes on an individual basis. After a rigorous review of the SGA constitution and bylaws, this court finds that the SGA failed to maintain adequate public meeting minutes for Senate General Body Meetings and Committee Meetings and failed to appoint Executive Branch cabinet members in a timely manner. Furthermore, this court affirms that all meetings of the SGA shall be open to the public, except when closed by a 2/3 vote in Senate General Body Meetings or Committee Meetings. Oral arguments occurred at the end of the 112th SGA. This opinion shall have effect upon current and future administrations. II Failure to Maintain Public Records: As described in the SGA Bylaws (3.2.1.3 & 3.2.1.5), the Student Body Secretary is tasked with serving as the primary recordkeeper of the JHU SGA, and the SGA Director of Communications is tasked with ensuring that SGA documentation (legislation, minutes, and working documents) is publicly accessible. Failure to faithfully fulfill these duties constitutes a violation of SGA Bylaws, as these duties are not optional. The SGA Bylaws state that “[Student Body Secretary] Serves as the primary recordkeeper for SGA” (3.2.1.3.2), “[Director of Communications] Presents records provided by the Secretary and meeting chairs to the public in an online format that is accessible in less than 2 clicks from the SGA website homepage or 4 clicks from the SGA’s social media pages” (3.2.1.5.3), and “[Director of Communications] Places any SGA document deliberated in the public sphere – legislation, minutes, and working documents – into public space within a week of receipt from the Secretary” (3.2.1.5.4). The Judiciary finds that due to the vacancy of the Director of Communications in the 112th SGA and the failure of the student body secretary to fulfill their responsibilities, these duties were not fulfilled. The Petitioner argues that these failures impaired the students' ability to be informed about the SGA's activities and hindered their knowledge of potential re-election candidates. The Judiciary rules in favor of the petitioner and mandates that the Director of Communications make the JHU SGA Google Drive containing all relevant legislation, minutes, and working documents accessible on the SGA website and publicly available. This should be done within two weeks of the Director of Communications taking office. III SGA Meetings and Closed Sessions: In accordance with Article IV Section 5 of the JHU SGA constitution, all SGA Senate General Body Meetings shall be open to the public unless closed by a 2/3 vote. Additionally, in accordance with Article 1 of the JHU SGA constitution, all meetings across the SGA shall be open to the public. In instances of committee meetings, a 2/3 vote of the respective committee may close the meeting. Senate motion may close executive meetings; however, all meetings that shall be classified as SGA meetings must otherwise be open. The judiciary and the executive shall reserve the right to engage in internal deliberations upon a majority vote of the judiciary and executive members, respectively. Internal deliberations shall not be classified as SGA meetings, provided they do not result in formal proceedings or include participation from external parties. Additionally, as described earlier, voting for Senate, Cabinet, and committee meetings must be recorded in the minutes. This mandate also applies to the vote to have a closed session. A brief explanation should follow as to why the meeting was closed, as written by the Student Body Secretary for Senate and Executive meetings (Bylaws 3.2.1.3.3) and minute takers at committee meetings (Bylaws 4.1.2.4.5.1.5). The Judiciary affirms that transparency is a foundational principle of self-governance as articulated in the Preamble and Article I of the Constitution. Any deviation from open access must be explicitly justified through constitutional procedure and safeguarded during official investigations. IV SGA Meeting Notes: The Judiciary finds failures in proper minute keeping, recording, and publishing across the SGA The Civic Engagement, CSO, Programming, and IA committees of the 112th SGA in particular have outdated minutes on the 112th SGA’s Google Drive. This violates Article I Section 3 of the JHU SGA Constitution, which states “all minutes and proceedings of the SGA shall be open to student inspection, except those deemed secure by a closed session motion by the Senate.” This includes the executive branch, the Judiciary, the Senate, and any committees. To ensure the public can access these minutes, the Judiciary looks to the SGA Bylaws, which state that within 48 hours of a meeting occurring, minutes should be sent to the Secretary (4.1.2.4.5.1.6). The Secretary should then send these minutes to the Director of Communications, who must post them publicly within a week of receiving them 3.2.1.5.4). The Judiciary also finds that minutes that do exist often do not provide clear information about what occurred. The SGA Bylaws lay out information that must be included in minutes for Senate and Cabinet meetings (3.2.1.3.3.1). This includes: The date, time, and location of a meeting, those present at and absent from a SGA meeting, including whether the absence is excused or unexcused, any guests in attendance at the meeting, the matters discussed in a meeting, the main ideas discussed within each matter, the major points or motions raised during the meeting, all votes made during the meeting, and, if possible via roll call or electronic voting, each senator’s vote will be recorded. This information was not being listed on minutes for Senate and Cabinet meetings even when minutes were being recorded. To ensure consistency and transparency, the Judiciary holds that all meeting minutes for the SGA follow this format. The Petitioner raised the question of redacting meeting minutes upon publication. As there is no mechanism in the SGA Constitution or Bylaws to do this, the Judiciary finds this practice unconstitutional. V Document Transparency and Protection During Formal Inquiries: In Article I of the JHU SGA Constitution, students have the right to inspect all minutes and proceedings of the SGA. In the spirit of this Article and Article IV Section 5, all publicly available documents serving in a supplementary or supportive capacity to the documents of SGA minutes and proceedings of the SGA shall be similarly protected. In the interest of protecting the rights of students to inspect documents relating to the minutes and proceedings of the SGA, existing documents shall not be altered, concealed, or destroyed at the point of any formal inquiry, as doing so would impede inspection of protected documents. A formal inquiry shall be determined by the Judiciary, including investigations into constitutional violations, election appeals, or legislative disputes. All investigations and cases in which the decision of the Judiciary is determined to be in regard to matters relating to the Senate, Executive Branch, or election procedures shall be considered a formal inquiry. Any obstruction, deletion, or amendment to any document protected in accordance with this order must be approved by the Judiciary until the formal inquiry has concluded. VI Appointment of Director of Communications: In Article III of the JHU SGA Constitution, the President is tasked with appointing the Director of Communications as part of their Cabinet. Article III states that “the President’s Cabinet shall have the following responsibilities: Student Body Vice President, Student Body Secretary, Student Body Treasurer, Director of Communications, Director of Research, and Chair of Programming.” Failure to faithfully fulfill these duties constitutes a violation of SGA Bylaws, as these duties are not optional. The Judiciary finds that the President of the 112th SGA failed to uphold this responsibility, as a Director of Communications was never appointed. The Petitioner argues that this failure has had a negative impact on the SGA’s ability to inform the student body of its operations. The Judiciary agrees with this argument, as the JHU SGA Bylaws state that the Director of Communications is responsible for placing “any SGA document deliberated in the public sphere – legislation, minutes, and working documents – into public space” (3.2.1.5.4). Without a Director of Communications, the 112th SGA failed to uphold this provision. As of October 7th, 2025, the Legislation folder of the 112th SGA was empty. Due to this fact the Judiciary finds that the legislation proposed and under consideration of the 112th SGA was inaccessible to students. This is a clear violation of the JHU SGA Constitution. The Judiciary finds that future administrations must prioritize timely appointments to these roles. The Bylaws provide that the Director of Communications chairs and manages the Communications and Marketing Commission (3.2.1.5.1). The Judiciary mandates that the incoming administration must appoint both the Director of Communications and the Director of Research within two weeks of assuming office. As stated in the Bylaws (3.2.1.3.2), the Student Body Secretary serves as the primary recordkeeper of SGA, with responsibility for maintaining minutes, votes, and records of proceedings. The Judiciary reaffirms that recordkeeping must be current and complete. Constitutional amendments, given their significant impact on the governance of the Association, must be posted publicly by the Director of Communications (3.2.1.5.3–3.2.1.5.4) within one week of receipt from the Secretary. The Judiciary directs that all amendments passed within the past academic year be immediately published to the SGA website to ensure students’ awareness of constitutional changes. The Judiciary further finds that attendance records fall within the scope of transparency obligations set out in the Bylaws. The Secretary must record attendance at all Senate and Cabinet meetings (3.2.1.3.3.1.2), and these records must be provided to the Director of Communications for public posting. The Judiciary mandates that attendance records be updated on a rolling basis for all future semesters. VII Legislative Oversight: Per Bylaws (4.1.2.1.4.5.2– 4.1.2.1.4.5.4), Internal Affairs is tasked with internal governance matters, amendments to governing documents, and oversight of compliance within the Senate. Accordingly, Internal Affairs is directed to monitor and enforce the changes mandated in this ruling, including the timely appointment of Cabinet directors, the maintenance of records, and the publication of amendments and attendance data.