A few weeks ago, the Duke Student Government Student Organization Funding Committee was successfully sued by FORM Magazine. Last week, Duke College Republicans tried to follow FORM's suit.

Senior Colin Duffy, president of DCR, filed a petition Sept. 26 with the DSG judiciary against SOFC. Because Duffy's group submitted its annual budget application five days late last year, then-SOFC chair Alexa Soren, Pratt ‘17, excluded DCR from DSG’s annual budget for this year. In his petition, Duffy claimed that by doing so, Soren denied DCR its due process rights. 

“In the case of the Duke College Republicans, Alexa Soren stated that her decision to deny funding to the Duke College Republicans was final, no exceptions would be made, and there was ‘really no discussion’ on the matter,” the petition states. “In doing so, Ms. Soren violated the due process guaranteed to groups by the SOFC By-Law.”

The petition by Duffy asked for SOFC to hold a “fair and unbiased hearing” to consider allowing DCR to receive a budget for the school year. Senior Dev Dabke, chief justice of the judiciary, wrote in an email that the judiciary sent the petition back to SOFC. According to the judiciary’s decision, SOFC was not required to decide on “any particular outcome" in regards to offering DCR a hearing or a budget.

Junior Luke Farrell, current chair of SOFC, wrote in an email to The Chronicle Sunday that he has decided not to give DCR a hearing. He claimed that there wasn't a constitutional violation in DCR's case. 

"Thanks so much for reaching out and for the careful consideration that was put into this petition. Despite the ruling of the Form case, which may have convinced you that this would be a fun idea, the circumstances surrounding DCR's denial are significantly different," Farrell wrote to Duffy and other relevant parties Friday evening.

However, Duffy responded in an email Monday to The Chronicle, saying that Farrell's email was "facetious" and "flippant."

“We brought this petition forth to the Judiciary on grounds that SOFC did not follow its bylaws,” Duffy wrote. "[Farrell's] flippant reply that this simply wastes the Chairman’s time and is only done for theatrical purposes shows the group does not have intentions to take either the Judiciary or its bylaws seriously."

Two weeks ago, FORM sued SOFC for being excluded from this year’s annual budget. In the case of FORM, Soren had denied the magazine a hearing because it turned in auditing paperwork related to their budget a few minutes late. The judiciary’s decision ordered SOFC to hold the hearing for the 2017-18 school year under the presumption that the magazine has submitted all necessary files.

Farrell noted that there were differences between the FORM and DCR cases. Because FORM could not submit a budget, its members could not appeal to the Financial Oversight and Appeals Committee or the Judiciary. As a result, due process rights were violated, Farrell wrote.

However, this argument did not apply to DCR, he added. 

“In the case of DCR, their annual budget was successfully submitted but ultimately denied because it was five days late,” Farrell wrote. “This denial was standard procedure, and they could have appealed to FOAC or judiciary in the spring if they wanted to.”

Editor's note: This article includes portions of Farrell's emails to The Chronicle and to parties involved with DCR's petition.