Court Opinions

The following Union Judiciary cases are available in their entirety in PDF format. Summaries are provided as a guide only and are non-binding, the full cases should be consulted for all legal matters.

Phillips v. Berlin (1997)

Held that the Allocations Board may not use allocations funds "for its own purposes," such as purchasing food during Marathon. Imposed punitive damages of $70 against the Allocations Board.

Read the case: Phillips v. Berlin (1997)

Yu v. Phillips (1997)

Upheld the decision of the Elections Commissioners to not allow Yu to be a candidate for office.

Read the case: Yu v. Phillips (1997)

Phillips v. Election Commissioners (1997)

Held that study abroad students are considered "inactive" by the University and may not run for Union office. Recommends that the Senate act to clarify eligibility for Union office.

Read the case: Phillips v. Election Commissioners (1997)

Schakow v. Election Commissioners (1997)

Held that verbal electioneering includes more than simply spoken word and that, as such, Schakow did not violate election rules and could not be disqualified from the race for Class of 2001 Senator.

Read the case: Schakow v. Election Commissioners (1997)

Sugarman v. Elections Commissioners (1997)

Held that the Justice's failure to print Sugarman's statement meant that the Elections Commissioners had violated elections rules, which stated that, "The Justice will provide each candidate with a space to have a piece published in the Forum section"" Therefore, primary elections for Student Representative to the Board of Trustees were voided.

Read the case: Sugarman v. Elections Commissioners (1997)

Ezring v. Commissioners (1998)

Held that Ezring did not violate the Candidates' Rules of Conduct by appearing in polling places on election day in the course of his normal daily routine. Recommends that candidate meetings be recorded and the election rules be clarified.

Read the case: Ezring v. Commissioners (1998)

Israel v. Commissioners (1999)

Held that Spring 1999 elections, specifically the rules dealing with club endorsements, were correctly held in accordance with the "old" constitution, as provisions of the new constitution would not be effective without the whole of the constitution, which could not take effect until new officers were sworn in. Recommends that the issue of club endorsements be the first item of business under the new constitution, and further that copies of the constitution always be available for review by Union members in the Student Union office.

Read the case: Israel v. Commissioners (1999)

Abbet v. Commissioners (1999)

Held that when an officer election does not have more then twice the number of candidates as positions, the primary round of balloting shall also be the final round.

Read the case: Abbet v. Commissioners (1999)

Rudnick v. Senate (1999)

Held that the Senate had fulfilled both its duty to inform the entire student body and its duty to inform "university news media" of a referendum at least eight academic days prior to the referendum by sending out an all-student e-mail. Recommended that the definition of ¿university news media¿ be clarified.

Read the case: Rudnick v. Senate (1999)

Schapira v. Peck (1999)

Held that the Elections Commissioners' failure to notify Schapira of time, place and nature of the Rosenthal Quad Senator election did not warrant re-run of the election, as the lack of publicity impacted all candidates equally. Held that write-in candidates should not be allowed in final elections.

Read the case: Schapira v. Peck (1999)

Friedman v. Peck (2000)

Held that the election for Representative to the Alumni Association would be pushed back to the second round of spring elections. As Elections Commissioners did not contest the charges against them, the case was not argued in front of the Union Judiciary.

Read the case: Friedman v. Peck (2000)
Read the injunction: Injunction in Friedman v. Peck (2000)

Groman v. Brandzel (2000)

Held that elections irregularities did not impact Groman more than they did other candidates, so the election for Rosenthal Quad Senator would not be re-run. Held that potential fraud in an election would not necessitate the re-running of an election unless that potential exceeded an "acceptable risk."

Read the case: Groman v. Brandzel (2000)

Mayman v. Commissioners (2000)

Held that Elections Commissioners' establishment of a threshold of legitimacy for write-in candidates was unconstitutional because this threshold was not created and defined for all candidates prior to the election for members of the Union Judiciary. Concurring opinion held that this threshold of legitimacy necessarily was unconstitutional. Suggested that a constitutional amendment be passed to clarify elections rules with regard to write-in candidates.

Read the case: Mayman v. Commissioners (2000)

Peck v. Commissioners (2000)

Held that the contradiction between printed elections rules and a verbal statement by elections commissioners necessitated that the verbal statement should supercede the printed rules. Reinstated Peck as a candidate for Student Union President.

Read the case: Peck v. Commissioners (2000)

Mountain Club v. Union (2001)

Held that the Allocations Board¿s establishment of a monetary penalty upon clubs that failed to submit requisite was unconstitutional because it was done ex post facto and clubs had not been informed of the potential penalty. Awarded Mountain Club $696 that had been taken through said penalty. Dissenting opinion held that the establishment of a "deadline" and "due date" implied that a penalty would be assessed.

Read the case: Mountain Club v. Union (2001)

Tansey v. Herman (2002)

Held that Tansey could not be a candidate for elected office because she did not meet the full-time student standard as a result of her studying abroad. Held that a full-time Brandeis student is someone who takes classes at Brandeis, is recognized by the registrar as being an active student and pays all tuition and mandatory fees to Brandeis.

Read the case: Tansey v. Herman (2002)

Berns v. Herman (2002)

Held that any resources used in campaigns must meet both a functional equivalent standard and an availability standard. Held that Berns used materials that did not meet the availability standard, so his disqualification was upheld.

Read the case: Berns v. Herman (2002)

Archon v. Debate (2002)

Held that Debate violated principles of responsibility implicit in the Constitution in gathering signatures for a constitutional amendment, making the signatures invalid.

Read the case: Archon v. Debate (2002)

Silverman v. Commissioners (2003)

Held that a website endorsing Silverman was functionally equivalent to free websites, making the posting of the endorsement there constitutional. Held that the process of endorsing a candidate consists solely of notification of endorsement, but that conduct of an endorsing group could not be regulated ex post facto. Opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, unlike the majority opinion, upheld the disqualification of Silverman.

Read the case: Silverman v. Commissioners (2003)

Singer v. Commissioners (2003)

Held that the only connection between students studying abroad and Brandeis is a "study abroad fee," which fails to make the students part of the Union membership. Held that elections commissioners were correct in refusing Singer and other students studying abroad the right to vote in a Union election.

Read the case: Singer v. Commissioners (2003)
Read the order: Opinion and Order Granting Defendants Motion to Dismiss in Part in Singer v. Commissioners (2003)

UJ Decisions Volume 6

Volume 6 includes the following cases:

Archon et. al. v. Debate (p. 1)
Silverman v. The Elections Commission, Computer Operators Group v. the Elections Commission I (p. 6)
Silverman v. The Elections Commission, Computer Operators Group v. the Elections Commission II (p. 8)
Singer v. The Elections Commission I (p. 22)
Singer v. The Elections Commission II (p. 26)

UJ Volume 6 [pdf]

UJ Decisions Volume 7

Balsam et. al. v. Student Union I (Order Granting Injunction) (p. 1)
Balsam et. al. v. Student Union II (Order Clarifying Injunction) (p. 3)
Balsam et. al. v. Student Union III (Opinion on the Merits) (p. 5)
Student Union v. Andrei Khots I (Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement) (p. 9)
Student Union v. Andrei Khots II (Order to Change Parties) (p. 10)
Student Union v. Andrei Khots III (Opinion on Pre-Trial Motions) (p. 12)
Student Union v. Andrei Khots III - Mr. Justice Dewey's opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part (p. 14)
In Re Bryan Andrew Lober I (Rules of Procedure) (p. 30)
In Re Bryan Andrew Lober II (Order Denying Leave To File) (p. 38)
In Re Bryan Andrew Lober II - Mr. Justice Dewey dissenting (p. 39)
In Re Bryan Andrew Lober III (Opinion Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss) (p. 56)
In Re Bryan Andrew Lober III - Mr. Justice Dewey concurring in part and dissenting in part (p. 58)
In Re Bryan Andrew Lober IV - Opinion on the Merits (p. 87)
In Re Bryan Andrew Lober IV - Statement of Mr. Justice Dewey (p. 93)

UJ Volume 7 [pdf]

UJ Decisions Volume 8

In Re Bryan Andrew Lober I (Opinion on Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nombis)
Hauptmann v. Silverman

UJ Volume 8 [pdf]

Mauer v. Amann (2005)

Held that the UJ has jurisdiction over an appeal from a substantive final decision by the Chief of Elections. Also held that frivolous claims would be disposed of summarily on appeal.

Read the order: Mauer v. Amann (2005)

Archon v. BTV (2005)

Read the orders: Archon v. BTV

Previous versions of this page: 2004-01-24