JUDICIARY OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITYSTUDENT GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATIONSyllabusJACKSON MORRIS, PETITIONER v. JOHNS HOPKINSSTUDENT GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION (SGA)CERTIORARI TO THE JOHNS HOPKINS STUDENTGOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION JUDICIARYNo.26-0503 Argued April 3, 2025—Decided April 5, 2025Note original publishing of this document on February 2nd, 2026 incorrectly indicated this casewas 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 availablesystem for students to inspect the minutes and proceedings of the SGA, which constitutesa violation of the SGA Constitution and Bylaws. Additionally, Petitioner alleges SGAmeeting minutes for the Executive Cabinet, Class Programming Council, Senate StandingLegislative 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 constitutea violation of the SGA Constitution and Bylaws. Finally, Petitioner alleges the SGA failsto record votes on an individual basis, and argues this oversight constitutes a violation ofthe SGA Constitution and Bylaws. Respondents contend that all Executive Branchmeetings have been “public” since September 2024, except for meetings limited byUniversity 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 ofCertiorari to the SGA Judiciary on February 14, 2025. The Judiciarysubsequently granted this petition on February 22nd and notified therespondents, SGA, of this fact on February 23rd. The SGA thensubmitted 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 receivingavailability from Mr. Meng, Mr. Huang, and Mr. Morris, the oralarguments date was set for Thursday, April 3rd, at 6:30 PM. Oralarguments were conducted in Wolman Hall multipurpose room withthe option to attend via Zoom to accommodate Mr. Morris’ inabilityto 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 andproceedings of this case*Opinion of the CourtJUDICIARY OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS STUDENTGOVERNMENT ASSOCIATIONNo.26-0503JACKSON MORRIS, PETITIONER v. JOHNS HOPKINSSTUDENT GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION (SGA)ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE JOHNS HOPKINSSTUDENT GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION JUDICIARY[February 2nd, 2026]CHIEF JUSTICE MAZZANOBILE delivered the opinion of the Court.IThis case presents a dispute over the transparency and record-keeping of the SGA. Petitioner Jackson Morris contends that theSGA failed to keep meeting minutes up-to-date and publiclyavailable. Additionally, that the SGA meeting minutes for theExecutive Cabinet, Class Programming Council, Senate StandingLegislative Committee, Committee on Student Elections, JudiciaryBoard, Policy Research & Development Commission (PRDC),Communications & Marketing Commission (CMC), and other SGAmeetings are not publicly available to the Johns Hopkins studentbody. And lastly, that the SGA fails to publicly record votes on anindividual basis.After a rigorous review of the SGA constitution and bylaws,this court finds that the SGA failed to maintain adequate publicmeeting minutes for Senate General Body Meetings and CommitteeMeetings and failed to appoint Executive Branch cabinet membersin a timely manner. Furthermore, this court affirms that all meetingsof the SGA shall be open to the public, except when closed by a 2/3vote in Senate General Body Meetings or Committee Meetings.Oral arguments occurred at the end of the 112th SGA. Thisopinion shall have effect upon current and future administrations.IIFailure to Maintain Public Records: As described in the SGABylaws (3.2.1.3 & 3.2.1.5), the Student Body Secretary is taskedwith serving as the primary recordkeeper of the JHU SGA, and theSGA Director of Communications is tasked with ensuring that SGAdocumentation (legislation, minutes, and working documents) ispublicly accessible. Failure to faithfully fulfill these dutiesconstitutes a violation of SGA Bylaws, as these duties are notoptional. The SGA Bylaws state that “[Student Body Secretary]Serves as the primary recordkeeper for SGA” (3.2.1.3.2), “[Directorof Communications] Presents records provided by the Secretary andmeeting chairs to the public in an online format that is accessible inless than 2 clicks from the SGA website homepage or 4 clicks fromthe SGA’s social media pages” (3.2.1.5.3), and “[Director ofCommunications] Places any SGA document deliberated in thepublic sphere – legislation, minutes, and working documents – intopublic space within a week of receipt from the Secretary”(3.2.1.5.4). The Judiciary finds that due to the vacancy of theDirector of Communications in the 112th SGA and the failure of thestudent body secretary to fulfill their responsibilities, these dutieswere not fulfilled. The Petitioner argues that these failures impairedthe students' ability to be informed about the SGA's activities andhindered their knowledge of potential re-election candidates. TheJudiciary rules in favor of the petitioner and mandates that theDirector of Communications make the JHU SGA Google Drivecontaining all relevant legislation, minutes, and working documentsaccessible on the SGA website and publicly available. This shouldbe done within two weeks of the Director of Communications takingoffice.IIISGA Meetings and Closed Sessions: In accordance with Article IV
Section 5 of the JHU SGA constitution, all SGA Senate General Body Meetingsshall be open to the public unless closed by a 2/3 vote. Additionally, inaccordance with Article 1 of the JHU SGA constitution, all meetings across theSGA shall be open to the public. In instances of committee meetings, a 2/3 voteof the respective committee may close the meeting. Senate motion may closeexecutive meetings; however, all meetings that shall be classified as SGAmeetings must otherwise be open. The judiciary and the executive shall reservethe right to engage in internal deliberations upon a majority vote of the judiciaryand executive members, respectively. Internal deliberations shall not beclassified as SGA meetings, provided they do not result in formal proceedingsor include participation from external parties. Additionally, as described earlier,voting for Senate, Cabinet, and committee meetings must be recorded in theminutes. This mandate also applies to the vote to have a closed session. A briefexplanation should follow as to why the meeting was closed, as written by theStudent 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 Judiciaryaffirms that transparency is a foundational principle of self-governance asarticulated in the Preamble and Article I of the Constitution. Any deviation fromopen access must be explicitly justified through constitutional procedure andsafeguarded during official investigations.IVSGA Meeting Notes: The Judiciary finds failures in properminute keeping, recording, and publishing across the SGA TheCivic Engagement, CSO, Programming, and IA committees of the112th SGA in particular have outdated minutes on the 112th SGA’sGoogle Drive. This violates Article I Section 3 of the JHU SGAConstitution, which states “all minutes and proceedings of the SGAshall be open to student inspection, except those deemed secure bya closed session motion by the Senate.” This includes the executivebranch, the Judiciary, the Senate, and any committees. To ensure thepublic can access these minutes, the Judiciary looks to the SGABylaws, which state that within 48 hours of a meeting occurring,minutes should be sent to the Secretary (4.1.2.4.5.1.6). TheSecretary should then send these minutes to the Director ofCommunications, who must post them publicly within a week ofreceiving them 3.2.1.5.4). The Judiciary also finds that minutes thatdo exist often do not provide clear information about what occurred.The SGA Bylaws lay out information that must be included inminutes for Senate and Cabinet meetings (3.2.1.3.3.1). Thisincludes: The date, time, and location of a meeting, those presentat and absent from a SGA meeting, including whether theabsence is excused or unexcused, any guests in attendance at themeeting, the matters discussed in a meeting, the main ideasdiscussed within each matter, the major points or motions raisedduring the meeting, all votes made during the meeting, and, ifpossible via roll call or electronic voting, each senator’s vote willbe recorded. This information was not being listed on minutes forSenate and Cabinet meetings even when minutes were beingrecorded. To ensure consistency and transparency, the Judiciaryholds that all meeting minutes for the SGA follow this format. ThePetitioner raised the question of redacting meeting minutes uponpublication. As there is no mechanism in the SGA Constitution orBylaws to do this, the Judiciary finds this practice unconstitutional.V
Document Transparency and Protection During FormalInquiries: In Article I of the JHU SGA Constitution, students havethe right to inspect all minutes and proceedings of the SGA. In thespirit of this Article and Article IV Section 5, all publicly availabledocuments serving in a supplementary or supportive capacity to thedocuments of SGA minutes and proceedings of the SGA shall besimilarly protected. In the interest of protecting the rights of studentsto inspect documents relating to the minutes and proceedings of theSGA, existing documents shall not be altered, concealed, ordestroyed at the point of any formal inquiry, as doing so wouldimpede inspection of protected documents. A formal inquiry shallbe determined by the Judiciary, including investigations intoconstitutional violations, election appeals, or legislative disputes.All investigations and cases in which the decision of the Judiciary isdetermined to be in regard to matters relating to the Senate,Executive Branch, or election procedures shall be considered aformal inquiry. Any obstruction, deletion, or amendment to anydocument protected in accordance with this order must be approvedby the Judiciary until the formal inquiry has concluded.VIAppointment of Director of Communications: In Article III of theJHU SGA Constitution, the President is tasked with appointing theDirector of Communications as part of their Cabinet. Article III statesthat “the President’s Cabinet shall have the following responsibilities:
Student Body Vice President, Student Body Secretary, Student BodyTreasurer, Director of Communications, Director of Research, andChair of Programming.” Failure to faithfully fulfill these dutiesconstitutes a violation of SGA Bylaws, as these duties are notoptional. The Judiciary finds that the President of the 112th SGA failedto uphold this responsibility, as a Director of Communications wasnever appointed. The Petitioner argues that this failure has had anegative impact on the SGA’s ability to inform the student body of itsoperations. The Judiciary agrees with this argument, as the JHU SGABylaws state that the Director of Communications is responsible forplacing “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 SGAfailed to uphold this provision. As of October 7th, 2025, the Legislationfolder of the 112th SGA was empty. Due to this fact the Judiciary findsthat the legislation proposed and under consideration of the 112th SGAwas inaccessible to students. This is a clear violation of the JHU SGAConstitution. The Judiciary finds that future administrations mustprioritize timely appointments to these roles. The Bylaws provide thatthe Director of Communications chairs and manages theCommunications and Marketing Commission (3.2.1.5.1). The Judiciarymandates that the incoming administration must appoint both the
Director of Communications and the Director of Research within twoweeks of assuming office. As stated in the Bylaws (3.2.1.3.2), theStudent Body Secretary serves as the primary recordkeeper of SGA,with responsibility for maintaining minutes, votes, and records ofproceedings. The Judiciary reaffirms that recordkeeping must be currentand complete. Constitutional amendments, given their significantimpact 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 oneweek of receipt from the Secretary. The Judiciary directs that allamendments passed within the past academic year be immediatelypublished to the SGA website to ensure students’ awareness ofconstitutional changes. The Judiciary further finds that attendancerecords fall within the scope of transparency obligations set out in theBylaws. The Secretary must record attendance at all Senate and Cabinetmeetings (3.2.1.3.3.1.2), and these records must be provided to theDirector of Communications for public posting. The Judiciary mandatesthat attendance records be updated on a rolling basis for all futuresemesters.VIILegislative Oversight: Per Bylaws (4.1.2.1.4.5.2–4.1.2.1.4.5.4), Internal Affairs is tasked with internal governancematters, amendments to governing documents, and oversight ofcompliance within the Senate. Accordingly, Internal Affairs is directedto monitor and enforce the changes mandated in this ruling, includingthe timely appointment of Cabinet directors, the maintenance of records,and the publication of amendments and attendance data.