JURISDICTION, VENUE, & ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES
1. This Honorable Court has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Article III of the Constitution of the Republic of Andorn, which states "The Supreme Court can at any time take over the powers of the Federal Court, the Supreme Court can also hear, accept or deny appeals, preside over cases requesting removal of an Elected Official or Appointed Official.",
2. EMERGENCY INJUCTION: The plaintiff hereby request the court grant an emergency injunction to bar SumoMC being removed as President of the Republic of Andorn until this court case is resolved. The Defense is blatant violating the constitution by impeaching and removing a President-Elect which is not prescribed or allowed by the constitution of Andorn.
THE PARTIES
1. SumoMC (“Plaintiff”),
2. House of Representatives (“Defendant”),
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. On June 6th, 2025 at 11:37PM EST (4:37PM GMT Screenshot local time) Rep. Soundi88 introduced Articles of Impeachment to the House against President SumoMC in his capacity of President and President-Elect.
2.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
1. The Constitution does not give the congress the power to impeach the President-Elect, as they have not taken nor do they hold the Office of the President,
2. Plaintiff asserts that the constitution explicitly only allows the Congress to impeach the President, Vice President, Cabinet Secretary, or the Attorney General.
3. The Plaintiff does not dispute the fact that the Congress has the power to impeach the sitting President, however they can not impeach the President Elect.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
THEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court declare that the President Elect can not be preemptively impeached and removed from office prior to that individual entering his term as President. In addition, we ask the Court to strike the Articles of Impeachment against the President Elect from law.
Respectfully submitted,
Ryan_88
Attorney for Plaintiff
This Court considers the Plaintiff’s Motion for an Emergency Injunction seeking to bar removal of President-Elect SumoMC prior to a final ruling on the constitutionality of impeaching a President-Elect.
After careful consideration of the pleadings, constitutional provisions, and the unique circumstances that the Plaintiff remains President for four more days before assuming office, the Court finds as follows:
The Constitution clearly authorizes impeachment of sitting officials including the President, Vice President, Cabinet Secretary, and Attorney General. The President currently holds office and thus may be subject to impeachment proceedings.
The Constitution does not explicitly authorize impeachment of a President-Elect who has not yet assumed office. The Court recognizes the Plaintiff’s substantial claim that premature removal prior to taking office may violate constitutional protections.
To balance these interests, the Court will allow the impeachment trial proceedings to continue in accordance with the constitutional process.
However, the Court hereby enjoins the Senate from conducting any vote that would result in the removal or disqualification of the Plaintiff as President-Elect until the Court issues a final ruling on the constitutional question presented.
This Order preserves the status quo, protects the Plaintiff’s rights as President-Elect, and respects the legislature’s impeachment powers over a sitting President.
President Donuticus will be representing the House, however In light of former President Sumo's reignation, The President has been swamped with his new duties. It is no picnic running our great nation. In light of this, the defense asks a continuation to prepare ourselves properly.
Respectfully submitted,
Speaker Maxterpiece
Co-counsel for the Defense
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1. On June 6th, 2025 at 11:37PM EST (4:37PM GMT Screenshot local time) Rep. Soundi88 introduced Articles of Impeachment to the House against President SumoMC in his capacity of President and President-Elect.
i. The Defense AFFIRMS this. This is what happened. 2.
i. The Defense AFFIRMS this. The Plaintiff provides a blank and empty space, presumably to symbolize the leg they have to stand on.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 1. The Constitution does not give the congress the power to impeach the President-Elect, as they have not taken nor do they hold the Office of the President,
i. The Defense REJECTS this, as we will outline in our main arguments. 2. Plaintiff asserts that the constitution explicitly only allows the Congress to impeach the President, Vice President, Cabinet Secretary, or the Attorney General.
i. The Defense absolutely REJECTS this and questions if the Plaintiff is intentionally attempting to mislead the court in making this state, as we will outline in our main arguments. 3. The Plaintiff does not dispute the fact that the Congress has the power to impeach the sitting President, however they can not impeach the President Elect.
i. The Defense REJECTS this, as we will outline in our main arguments.
MAIN ARGUMENTS
We will now fully outline the reasons why the Plaintiff is extremely wrong in their assertions that a President-Elect cannot be impeached. The purpose of this will be to convince the court to lift the extremely overreaching restrictions they have put in place.
ARGUMENT ONE
The Constitution Empowers Congress to Impeach Any Executive Official
The Constitution does not specifical limit the list of positions that can be impeached, the Plaintiff claims “the constitution explicitly only allows the Congress to impeach the President, Vice President, Cabinet Secretary, or the Attorney General.” This is completely false and shows that the Plaintiff has not read the full Constitution before filing this case, and thus is wasting this court's time or worst purposefully misleading the court.
While it specifically names the President, Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries, and Attorney General in some contexts, it also uses broader language elsewhere. Article II lists “Impeachment of Members of the Executive” as a responsibility of the House. This phrase is unqualified - it does not specify “sitting” members, nor does it define “Executive” in a restrictive way - it simply states that the House can impeach “Members of the Executive.”
When you take this into consideration you realize that the previous list, which the Plaintiff is claiming is an absolute list of the only roles that can be impeached, is actually just a non-exhaustive list of roles that can be impeached. It is the belief of the defense that the Plaintiff is just trying to take one section of the Constitution out of context in order to save an impeached President from having to leave office, the reality is that the Constitution has to be taken and understood in its entirety.
Expanding on this, the President-Elect , “next President”, or “future President”, or any other such phrase you wish to use, they all mean the same thing “President”, having won the national election and awaiting inauguration, is indisputably a member of the Executive Branch. They have been elected to Government and are thus a part of the Government (Though we will expand on this later).
Just as a Cabinet Secretary-Designate would fall under this power if formally nominated, so too does the President-Elect, who is guaranteed the full powers of the Presidency once they have been elected, barring legal intervention. This is even truer in the case of a President who has been reelected, in this instance the Presidency is not a one-day transition of power but a continuum. The articles of impeachment were very clear for this purpose, the President is being impeached from his first and his second term.
ARGUMENT TWO
The Term “President-Elect” Is Merely a Temporal Descriptor
The Articles of Impeachment refer to “President-Elect” solely to distinguish between SumoMC’s current and forthcoming terms, both of which are affected. This is a linguistic device in order to make it explicitly clear that the President is being impeached from both terms in office, not the creation of a separate office it just refers to the other term.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there a functional distinction between “President” and “President-Elect.” In fact Article I(6) makes reference to the “next President”, clearly indicating that the individual elected to the Presidency is considered a President by the Constitution. Furthermore the Constitution is silent on the exact timing and scope of impeachment, and constitutional silence is not prohibition.
A person elected but not yet inaugurated still remains within the chain of executive succession and is thus subject to constitutional mechanisms like impeachment, the idea that an individual is not bound by the Constitution until they are magically inaugurated is extremely dangerous, as under the Plaintiff’s theory an incoming President could act with impunity until they take the Oath of Office.
The President-Elect is not outside the Executive - they are in direct succession, guaranteed to assume command unless disqualified. The Constitution empowers Congress to remove the President (and others), but does not impose a pause in this power during transitions. If the Office of President continues unbroken, then so must the power to protect it.
ARGUMENT THREE
The Constitution Does Not Require Office-Holding to Initiate Impeachment
Contrary to the Plaintiff’s claim, there is no textual requirement that impeachment only begins after an individual assumes office. The Constitution’s use of the phrase “removal from office” refers to the consequence of a conviction, not a precondition for the impeachment.
Impeachment is preventative, not just reactive. If evidence of misconduct arises before inauguration the legislative branch must be empowered to act. By this logic, post-term impeachment would also be invalid, as if stepping down from office would magically make you not subject to the rules and checks in the Constitution.
Impeachment should exist as a black mark on a President's tenure, it is a check on a bad President, it exists to protect the Office of the President from a bad actor, and protect the people of Andorn from a bad President. There is no implicit requirement for someone to be currently in Office to be impeached.
ARGUMENT FOUR
Congressional Precedent and Law-Making Authority Justify the Impeachment
The Congress is constitutionally vested with the power to “create the laws of the land.” While normally exercised through legislation; precedent, procedure, and institutional consensus are equally valid sources of law in Andorn’s framework.
The House and Senate have jointly acted to impeach and pursue removal of SumoMC from both the remainder of his current term and his upcoming term. This constitutes a valid exercise of legislative authority, consistent with constitutional structure, spirit, and historical practice.
The Congress is responsible for writing the law, there are no explicit restrictions, as explained, against impeachments. Therefore by acting Congress is expressing its legislative authority, therefore unless the act is explicitly restricted, which it is not, it is legal.
ARGUMENT FIVE
Impeachment Serves to Prevent Harm
The Plaintiff’s interpretation would tie the hands of Congress during a critical window. If a President-Elect were to commit acts of corruption, incitement, or sedition after the election but before inauguration, the government would be powerless to act until they were already in office potentially after irreversible damage.
Their interpretation is predicated on wordplay, false assumptions, and a loophole which acts against the core purpose of impeachment, which is to safeguard the Republic from dangerous or unfit leadership. At the end of the day this Constitution is poorly written and missing large sections, making flexible interpretation necessary. However even under a straight, by the letter of the word, interpretation there is nothing restricting the impeachment of an individual before their term, because impeachment exists to prevent harm - which can happen at any point before or after the term!
ARGUMENT SIX
The Constitution's Language on Judicial Authority Supports This Interpretation
We have established that the Plaintiff’s claim that “the constitution explicitly only allows the Congress to impeach the President, Vice President, Cabinet Secretary, or the Attorney General.” is completely incorrect. However further parts of the Constitution confirm this. Article III states the Court shall “preside over cases requesting removal of an Elected Official or Appointed Official.” The language here is broad and clearly refers to “elected official” as an individual who can be impeached, this cannot be read narrowly to apply only once power is formally assumed.
Upon being elected to the Presidency the individual is an elected official, it doesn’t matter if they are yet to formally take the Oath of Office - they ARE an elected official. This is the same as referring to an “Appointed Official”, notice it does not refer to them as a “Confirmed Official” or some other term but as having been appointed.
ARGUMENT SEVEN
The Plaintiff’s Resignation Is a Tactical Maneuver to Avoid Legal Consequences
The Former President is using this case to attempt to outmaneuver a legal impeachment into his own behaviour, furthermore he has resigned from office in order to try and create a break between his two potential terms in order to further muddy the waters and create a legal loophole that would allow him to remain in Office.
The Court should see this as an evasion of justice, not a legitimate constitutional defense. If the impeachment can be defeated by a technicality, which is what this whole case is predicated on, technicalities and wordplay - despite the spirit of impeachment being very clear in its intent, then the integrity of the entire system of checks and balances is undermined.
ARGUMENT EIGHT
The President-Elect Has Begun Exercising Authority and Therefore Enters the Scope of Accountability
Even before a President-Elect takes Office they are wielding and exercising the authority of the office they are about to enter. They may announce and form policy, interact with foreign nations, organize the transition, and begin staffing their departments - their Presidency begins long before they take the Oath of Office. The President-Elect has the ability to exercise authority, as per the Constitution, and therefore they must be able to be held accountable, as per the Constitution.
ARGUMENT NINE
Allowing Immunity During the Transition Creates a Legal “Presidential Purge”
If the President-Elect is unaccountable between election and inauguration, there exists a legal void where crimes can be committed with no recourse (like the Movie ‘The Purge’, but for Presidents), public trust can be violated without oversight, and legal safeguards are temporarily switched off. Imagine a scenario where upon being reelected the President immediately begins a massive amount of corruption and personal enrichment, safe in the knowledge that even if removed they will be returned to office a few days later due to the technicality that it's a different term and therefore separate from the previous actions.
The process of impeachment is created for one purpose and that is to protect the Republic of Andorn from bad actors. It would be destabilizing and dangerous to require Congress to wait until inauguration to begin impeachment, especially when there is no requirement for this in the Constitution.
ARGUMENT TEN
No Officeholder Is Above the Law, Even Before Taking Office
The ultimate principle underpinning any constitutional democracy is that no one is above the law, not even before they formally step into power. The President-Elect must not be shielded from accountability for misconduct that undermines the Republic, the Constitution and the process of impeachment exists to ensure accountability before damage is irreversible.
SUMMARY
The impeachment of the President-Elect is not only constitutional, but also essential to be able to protect the Republic of Andorn from harm. White one part of the constitution does name specific offices subject to impeachment, it also makes it clear that Congress can impeach any member of the Executive, which by logic and necessity would also include members in waiting.
The President-Elect is not a private citizen, they are an incoming member of the Executive Branch, the incoming head of the Executive Branch. Elected by the people and already entrusted with responsibility, that makes them subject to accountability.
Importantly, the Constitution does not limit impeachment to sitting officials, nor does it prescribe a timeline. If the President-Elect has committed impeachable offenses, such as abuse of power, corruption, or undermining national unity, Congress must be able to act before they assume the full powers of the presidency. Delaying impeachment until after inauguration would allow a dangerous individual to enter office and do harm while the slow impeachment process unfolds.
The term “President-Elect” is only used to differentiate between terms, in this case, the same individual holds both the current and upcoming presidency. Thus, when Congress impeaches “President and President-Elect” SumoMC, it is constitutionally removing him from both terms of office under its rightful power.
Furthermore, Congress’s power to “create the laws of the land” includes establishing procedures and precedents, such as holding an elected official accountable before they are inaugurated. Custom and constitutional silence on a matter should not be interpreted as prohibition, especially when the very purpose of impeachment is to prevent further harm.
Finally, prescribing the Plaintiff’s theory would create a legal loophole to shield a President-Elect from impeachment creating a dangerous “dead zone” in our constitutional order where a person empowered to lead the nation becomes temporarily immune from accountability. This violates the core democratic principle that no one is above the law.
Therefore, the impeachment of a President-Elect is both lawful and essential, and the Congress must retain the right to consider and act upon charges brought to protect the Republic.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ANDORN
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
With all the arguments we have presented we ask the court to reconsider its order to freeze the Impeachment of the President-Elect.
The Court’s ruling, while intended to preserve the status quo, unjustly interferes with a core constitutional function by halting the full effect of a lawful impeachment. This creates an unstable precedent that is unfair to the legislature by blocking the removal from office thereby allowing an impeached individual to assume or resume the presidency, contrary to both legislative intent and the Constitution’s clear procedure.
The Court’s injunction risks enabling an impeached President to exploit legal delay tactics, such as procedural motions or continuance requests, to unlawfully assume and extend their hold on power, despite Congress already deeming them unfit for office. During this delay, the Plaintiff could exercise full presidential authority, undermining public trust and democratic legitimacy. The greater harm lies in the lasting damage to constitutional order and national stability caused by stalling a properly executed impeachment.
By enjoining the consequences of a completed impeachment, the Court exceeds its constitutional mandate, crossing from judicial interpretation into legislative obstruction. The Constitution empowers the Court to review laws, review happens after the fact, not during, not before, after, especially in matters, like impeachment, reserved solely for the legislature. This injunction creates a perilous precedent where any official facing removal could trigger indefinite paralysis of constitutional processes simply by filing suit. Such overreach undermines the separation of powers and erodes the authority and finality of legislative action.
It is the fundamental role of the judiciary to review the constitutionality of laws and government actions and by definition, review occurs after the fact. The Court’s injunction, issued in the midst of an ongoing constitutional process, preempts the legislature’s authority before it has fully acted. Simply put unless it is overwhelmingly clear that an explicitly illegal action has occurred, the court should not order remedies until the conclusion of a case - anything else would be unfairly prejudiced towards the Plaintiff in this case and create the precedent that major functions of the Government can be frozen by the Courts for months only for the Courts to have made a mistake and done so erroneously.
Respectfully submitted,
The_Donuticus
Congressional Clerk, DOJ Deputy Secretary, and Attorney for the Defendant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ANDORN
Response to Motion to Reconsider
Unseatedduke1, CJ
Mask3D_WOLF, Justice
The Court has carefully reviewed the Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider its prior order granting an injunction to freeze the impeachment proceedings against the President-Elect, SumoMC. After thorough consideration of the arguments presented, the Court finds that the motion to reconsider must be DENIED and the injunction shall remain in effect.
The injunction was issued in recognition of serious constitutional questions raised regarding the scope and timing of impeachment authority as applied to a President-Elect. The injunction was not intended as a permanent determination of the merits of the impeachment, but rather as a temporary and necessary measure to preserve the constitutional order and prevent potential irreparable harm pending a full adjudication of the issues. A motion to reconsider is an extraordinary remedy, reserved for circumstances where the moving party demonstrates that the Court overlooked critical facts or legal principles, or that a manifest injustice would otherwise result. Mere disagreement with the Court’s ruling or repetition of prior arguments does not warrant reconsideration.
The Court recognizes the gravity of impeachment as a constitutional mechanism but also acknowledges that the application of impeachment powers to a President-Elect, rather than a sitting President, raises unresolved constitutional issues of first impression. By maintaining the injunction, the Court prevents premature disruption of the constitutional balance until these issues are properly litigated and resolved. The injunction preserves the status quo, ensuring no irreversible changes occur that could cause irreparable harm to the Republic or its constitutional governance. Contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, the Court’s order is well within the judicial mandate to interpret and safeguard the Constitution. While impeachment is a political question, courts have a constitutional duty to ensure that actions purportedly taken under constitutional authority comply with constitutional constraints. The injunction does not block Congress from impeaching generally; it merely prevents the enforcement of an impeachment vote in this particular instance until the Court has fully examined whether impeachment may properly apply to a President-Elect under the Constitution of Andorn.
The Court is mindful of the need to respect the roles and functions of the legislative and executive branches. The injunction is narrowly tailored and temporary, designed to prevent harm while preserving the Court’s ability to make a definitive ruling on the complex constitutional questions involved. Far from obstructing the legislative process, the injunction safeguards constitutional governance by ensuring that removal procedures are applied only within their lawful scope.
Judicial review is not limited to after-the-fact determinations when constitutional rights or powers may be irreparably harmed by immediate enforcement of legislative actions. The injunction ensures judicial review can occur in an orderly, fair manner without allowing potentially unlawful impeachment to proceed unchecked. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds no basis to disturb its prior order. The injunction remains necessary and appropriate to preserve the constitutional status quo and prevent irreparable harm pending resolution of the underlying constitutional questions.
Mask3D_WOLF, Justice
"While the defendant argues that impeachment serves as a preventative measure (albeit not as temporary as Emergency Injunctions), the Court finds that, in this situation, an emergency injunction is indeed a necessary and essential preventative mechanism, and, at this point, even more necessary than this impeachment."
Therefore, the Motion to Reconsider is DENIED in full, and the injunction freezing the impeachment vote against the President-Elect shall remain in effect until further order of this Court.
Discovery
Discovery starts now and will last 36 hours. This time frame is established to ensure an efficient and focused exchange of information, consistent with the interests of justice and judicial economy.
All parties are expected to conduct discovery diligently and cooperate in good faith within this limited period to avoid unnecessary delays. Extensions beyond this time limit will be granted upon a showing of circumstances.
The Defence asks the court to reconsider its order enjoining the Senate to not vote on the grounds that this case was filed agains the House of Representitives and the Senate is not a party to this case and therefore cannot be ordered to do anything in it.
Like the original EJ stated. "the Court herebyenjoins the Senate from conducting any vote that would result in the removal or disqualification of the Plaintiff as President-Elect......"
The Senate may vote to impeach now former President SumoMC but not from his president-elect role until this trial concludes.
The Defence makes one final plea to the Court to reconsider its order enjoining the Senate.
Part of the reason the Former President was impeached was for the actions he took to attempt to rig the election in the Senate in his favor.
The Court’s ruling has created an exploitable delay in the impeachment process at a moment of strategic political vulnerability. The injunction freezes the Senate’s ability to vote just one day before a new Senate is seated, replacing members willing to convict with those more loyal to the Plaintiff, one of who was elected as part of a conspiracy headed by the Plaintiff. By delaying the vote, the Court’s action indirectly allows the Plaintiff to benefit from a favorable shift in Senate composition either he wins this case and stays in office, or loses this case and the new Senate votes to acquit anyway.
There is credible evidence that Plaintiff SumoMC manipulated the most recent Senate election to ensure the seating of a loyalist (Antoinette) in place of a potential dissenter (MegaMiner). The margin of victory was a single vote, and four votes in favor of Antoinette were cast by unverifiable accounts, three of which were created by friends of SumoMC and had never interacted with the community through Discord or the official server. Furthermore SUmoMC had full viewing access to the election reasult live due to his role in the DoS and so knew exactly how many votes he would need in order to rig the election. This raises the grave concern that the Court’s injunction has enabled a coordinated attempt to obstruct the lawful conclusion of an impeachment by altering the jury before it can deliberate.
Rather than preserving fairness, the injunction grants the Plaintiff an unearned strategic advantage. While impeachment was underway, SumoMC leveraged the Court’s delay to cement political protection for himself in the next term. If allowed to stand, the injunction creates a dangerous precedent: any elected official under threat of impeachment can file suit, exploit court delays, manipulate future appointments through corruption, and avoid constitutional accountability altogether.
SumoMC has actively vetoed and delayed critical legislation intended to safeguard elections and prevent executive overreach. Notably, he postponed the signing of the Corruption and Treason Act, deliberately keeping it unenforceable while allegedly committing acts it was designed to criminalize. He has also vetoed bills that would outlaw election manipulation. This pattern of conduct suggests not good-faith governance, but an orchestrated effort to evade the rule of law and shield himself from consequences under cover of constitutional ambiguity.
The Defense’s filing raises serious allegations, including accusations of electoral manipulation and a “conspiracy” led by the Plaintiff. However, the Court finds such language to be speculative and inflammatory. Assertions of a “conspiracy” carry significant weight and, if genuinely believed, should be pursued through legal channels with evidentiary support not offered loosely as political rhetoric in court filings.
This Court will not act on conjecture. If a law has been broken, then charges should be brought through the proper prosecutorial and judicial mechanisms, accompanied by credible evidence and due process, not insinuation and innuendo. The burden of proof for criminal conduct lies with those making the accusation, not the Court. The injunction currently in place was granted not to obstruct the Senate’s duties, but to preserve the integrity of the constitutional process while this Court evaluates a challenge of constitutional magnitude. The Defense argues that the injunction gives the Plaintiff a strategic advantage. The Court disagrees. It merely ensures that no irreversible political action, such as the removal of a President-Elect, occurs while there remains an open and unresolved legal question as to whether such removal is itself constitutional.
To accept the Defense’s motion would be to allow the possibility of constitutional harm in exchange for a speculative political inconvenience. This Court does not weigh its duty based on political expediency, nor does it adjust its decisions to accommodate shifting partisan dynamics. The Defense is reminded that it is not the role of the judiciary to punish alleged misconduct through procedural shortcuts. If the Plaintiff has indeed interfered with the election process, as claimed, then let the appropriate departments investigate and bring charges accordingly. But those allegations are not relevant to the constitutional questions this Court must resolve.
The Motion to Reconsider is therefore denied. The injunction shall remain in effect until this Court issues its final ruling on the matter.
Chief Justice Unseatedduke1
Co-Signed: Mask3D_WOLF
Supreme Court of the Republic of Andorn
