← Back to grid
Existing Human Institutions › Community › Rights
Community rights and adjudication

Problem Sets

1Standing and Standard of Review in Fidelity Courts

Scenario. Eastbridge adopted a thick mandate for its transit authority six years ago — not just "efficient transportation" but a specific commitment to neighborhood connectivity, dignity on the bus, and service that fits people's real lives. Since then, three routes that served older residents and night-shift workers have been cut for underperformance, a fleet renewal left the low-floor buses the wheelchair users relied on out of the order, and the authority's own drivers have quietly stopped recommending the service to their own parents. A group led by Renata, a hospital janitor who takes the 5am bus, and Sam, a retired planner, want to bring a claim. They are not asking the court to run the authority; they are asking whether it is still doing what it was committed to do.

Challenge: Design the adjudication mechanism for a municipal fidelity court — a forum where residents can take a community-scale institution to court when its operations diverge from its mandate. Produce a short charter including the standing rules, standard of review, and at least one limiting principle.

Design Choices
  1. Standing. Who can bring a fidelity claim — any resident, or only "integrity holders" with a defined role, and how do you constitute integrity holders without creating a new elite?
  2. Standard of review. What's the analogue of rational-basis / intermediate / strict scrutiny, and when does an institution get deference versus close examination?
  3. Remedies. Can the court order the authority to change its optimization target, or only to justify its choices against the thick mandate?
  4. Abuse prevention. How do you prevent fidelity claims from becoming a venue for NIMBYism dressed in the language of values?
This cell isn’t ready yet.