On Sept. 23, the Supreme Court of the Student Bar Association (SBA) issued a slip opinion in the case Candidate A v. Candidate B. The unanimous opinion of the Court holds:

• Level 300 of the SBA Bylaws are invalid insofar as it “restricts the Court’s jurisdiction,” but Level 300 operates as “nonbinding guidance that [the Court] may consider at its discretion, but is not compelled to follow.”
• The Senate may conditionally delegate jurisdiction to the Court, such as it did with the review of Election Committee decisions under the SBA Bylaws.
• A candidate making a challenge under the Expedited Election Claims Process must follow the procedural requirements prescribed by the SBA Bylaws, including providing proof of service upon the Election Committee.

The case was filed last spring when an unnamed SBA candidate filed a complaint alleging another candidate was violating election rules. The complaint was submitted through the then-newly introduced Expedited Elections Claims Process. Although the process was developed to enable quick challenges to election-related decisions, the case was dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because Candidate A failed to provide proof of service on the SBA Elections Committee and failed to complain first to the Elections Committee.