ACJC functions as a supreme court within the Students’ Association Government. The SA Constitution grants the All-Campus Judicial Council the authority to interpret and review the actions of the Student Association Senate, organizations, and the student body. For example, the council decides several cases related to the Senate elections. In so doing, ACJC interprets the SA Constitution and its bylaws to determine the appropriate outcome, based on the preexisting rules of the Student Association. Decisions of ACJC are not subject to review or reversal by the SA Senate or President.
If you believe the actions of the SA President, Senate, or any of its standing committees have harmed you or your organization through a violation of the SA Constitution or its bylaws, you can contact the All-Campus Judicial Council for redress of your grievances.
All Students’ Association hearings are open to all members of the University community.
Recent SA Cases
Chizoba Umesi v. Students’ Association Senate (January 29, 2010) – ACJC Decision (PDF)
Johnathan Fuentes v. Senate Elections Committee (Tom Hayes, Chair) (March 26, 2005) – ACJC Decision (PDF)
Fraser Injunction (February 25, 2005) – AJCC Decision (PDF)
Princy Thottathill v. ACJC (Dave Iseminger, Chief Justice) (October 13, 2004) – ACJC Decision (PDF)
**Appeal of Joe Cala v. Senate Elections Committee
Appeal of Joe Cala v. SA Senate Elections Committee (October 9, 2004) – ACJC Decision (PDF)
Joe Cala v. Senate Elections Committee (October 1, 2004) – ACJC Decision (PDF)
Bowser Injunction (November 10, 2003) – ACJC Decision (PDF)
Appeal of Atul Gulati & Lonny Mallach v. SA Senate (March 21, 2003) – ACJC Decision (PDF)
Atul Gulati & Lonny Mallach v. SA Senate (March 2, 2003) – ACJC Decision (PDF)
Anna Czapla, et al., Petitioners v. Senate Elections Committee (March 27, 2002) – ACJC Order of Contempt (PDF)
Anna Czapla, et al., Petitioners v. Senate Elections Committee (March 24, 2002) – ACJC Decision (PDF)