Cyc filed a Judicial Review on the question if the Judiciary has the power to invalidate an existing law. The Judiciary affirms that it has this power, and details what actions should be taken when an existing law is invalidated. This review was unanimous for the first part, and divided for the second part. The Judiciary derives its powers from the Constitution and the Code of Laws. From Article F of the Constitution, tasked with upholding the Constitution and its supporting laws From Section D.2.c of the Code of Laws, participate in Judicial Review to interpret and clarify existing amendments, laws and standards. The conflict creating this Judicial Review is over the actions of the Judiciary in T2-JR4 in invalidating Section J.1.d of the Code of Laws. As Article F states, the Judiciary is charged with upholding the laws of Fanatica. However, Article B of the Constitution states that No rule shall be valid that contradicts these Articles, excepting an Amendment specifically tasked to do so. Clearly, the Articles of the Constitution are the primary source of Law for Fanatica all other laws must prevent conflicts with those Articles. In T2-JR4, the Judiciary found that J.1.d did create a conflict with a higher body of law, and did not have a means to resolve that conflict. A lower body of law cannot create a conflict with a higher body of law without a means existing within law to resolve that conflict. Given the conflict, the decision to invalidate the law was both proper and within the powers of the Judiciary. We affirm that the Judiciary has the power to invalidate existing law if the existing law is interpreted to conflict with an higher law where no means exists within law to resolve that conflict. The second, ancillary question concerned the actions that should be taken once a law is invalidated. The Court differed in its opinion on this matter. Per the request of the dissenting Justice, both opinions are detailed here. All Justices concur that once a law is invalidated, it no longer has any power over Fanatica. We further agree that this information needs to be clearly made noticeable to the Citizens of Fanatica. Part of the duties of the Judiciary from Section D.2.c is to clarify existing law. By extension, this includes the presentation of the books of law for the Citizens of Fanatica. Justices Ravensfire and donsig prefer the removal of any invalidated law from the books of Fanatica. The primary reason for this is clarity a citizen should be able to review the books of law, and know that all laws listed are in force. Any other method could leave open the chance of a mis-interpretation by a citizen. Justice Peri prefers that all laws remain on the books of Fanatica, including invalidated laws. All invalidated laws should be clearly and conspicuously denoted as invalid. By a 2-1 vote, dissenting opinion above, the Court clarifies that all invalidated laws should be removed from the books of Fanatica.