The Binghamton University chapter of New York Public Interest Research Group won a significant victory Wednesday night in a month-long fight with the Student Association over the continued existence of the student group on campus.

Last week SA Assembly Speaker Randal Meyer announced that the BU chapter of NYPIRG had been de-chartered for failing to comply with an order from the Assembly Rules Committee to vacate its office in the New University Union. Now the SA’s Judicial Board has overturned NYPIRG’s office eviction and ordered that the group’s charter be reinstated.

The Judicial Board’s decision came after it held an hour-long public hearing Wednesday evening in New University Union room 325 and deliberated for an additional three hours in private on a grievance filed by NYPIRG against the Assembly, which protested that the Assembly violated the SA constitution in its treatment of NYPIRG.

In a unanimous opinion — which did not specify a particular author — posted in the SA Office and distributed to media Wednesday night, the Judicial Board laid out the reasoning for its ruling and cited sections of the SA constitution and bylaws on which it was based.

The ruling held that a letter written by SA Vice President for Finance Adam Shamah, in which he petitioned the Rules Committee to investigate whether NYPIRG deserved to keep its office, did not meet requirements in the SA bylaws. A copy of Shamah’s letter showed that he described several reasons why he believed the group was undeserving of office space, but made no mention of rule infractions.

The decision further held that because 11 of the 18 student members of NYPIRG who had come to the Rules Committee hearing to speak on the group’s behalf were not allowed inside due to the chosen room’s maximum occupancy limit under the fire code, the Rules Committee had violated a provision of the SA’s constitution which protects students’ equal rights, as well as an SA bylaw granting all parties to hearings equal opportunity to speak. The Judicial Board called these two violations “egregious offenses.”

The Judicial Board struck down as unconstitutional the Rules Committee’s order that NYPIRG vacate its office, stating that “it stems entirely from a Rules Committee hearing held in blatant violation of the Constitution and Bylaws.”

The dispute surrounding NYPIRG’s status on campus began when the Rules Committee notified the group on Feb. 1 that the Committee would conduct a hearing on Feb. 3 to determine whether NYPIRG deserved to keep its office. At the hearing, the Rules Committee voted 7-2 to order NYPIRG to vacate its office, and the Assembly voted 16-14 to approve the Rules Committee’s decision at its next meeting on Feb. 7.

Instead, NYPIRG leaders filed grievances against the Rules Committee and Assembly with the Judicial Board in which it argued that the SA acted outside its constitutional authority and denied the group due process, among other claims.

While its grievances were still pending, NYPIRG continued to occupy its office and carry out its normal business: conducting activism on issues picked by the statewide organization’s student members, such as poverty and the environment.

Representatives of both NYPIRG and the SA presented their cases and fielded questions from members of the Judicial Board at the Wednesday night hearing.

Brenden Colling, a regional campus supervisor for NYPIRG who is not a BU student, was one of three people to speak for NYPIRG during the hearing. The other two were Briana Hussey, the BU chapter’s president, and Dillon Ruxton, one of its members.

The SA’s actions were defended by Meyer and Daniel Rabinowitz, SA vice president for academic affairs. They were joined at the defense table by SA President Jared Kirschenbaum, but he remained silent during the hearing.

Kirschenbaum, when asked why he and Rabinowitz were representing the Assembly despite the fact that neither are members of the body, explained that the case challenged the authority possessed by the SA at large and that any of the SA’s officers could argue the case.

“There’s no real method to the madness,” he said.

The Judicial Board continued to deliberate in private past 10 p.m., raising questions about whether the four-member panel could not reach a majority opinion.

The Judicial Board finally emerged and quickly passed out copies of their ruling before leaving.

After notifying the parties of the Judicial Board’s decision, Judicial Board Chair Mark Zakariya described the written opinion as “airtight.”

“My expectations are [Meyer] will probably spin his wheels endlessly trying to figure out a way to get through an airtight decision and hopefully not approach us again,” Zakariya said. “We spent a very good amount of time … referencing half the freaking constitution and bylaws.”

The decision also addressed several of the SA’s arguments for why NYPIRG should lose its charter that were unrelated to its office use, the only official grounds on which the Rules Committee and Assembly votes were based.

As he was leaving, Meyer was observed getting into a verbal altercation with Zakariya in the hallway outside the SA Office, in which Meyer criticized the reasoning upon which the Judicial Board’s opinion relied.

NYPIRG’s members expressed relief with the J-Board’s hearing.

“I’m glad finally there was some justice in this SA system,” said Julie Razryadov, a senior double-majoring in biology and environmental policy and law.

The SA’s Executive Board released a press statement Thursday evening, in which it called the Judicial Board’s opinion “deeply flawed.”

“[The decision] ignores plain text of the Student Association’s constitution and bylaws, written financial policies and SUNY Board of Trustee regulations,” the statement said. “If enacted as final policy, the Judicial Board’s decision will put the Student Association at considerable liability risk and could result in the non-renewal of our insurance policies. That would have far-reaching implications for every single student on this campus.”

Prior to the J-Board’s hearing, Shamah stated that he believed there were other grounds, based on alleged insurance violations committed by NYPIRG, for revoking NYPIRG’s charter if the J-Board gave the group a favorable ruling on its current challenges.

“If for some reason NYPIRG ends up with a new charter at any point this semester, I would 100 percent be looking into removing it based on the insurance,” Shamah said.

The E-Board’s statement said that the SA was planning an appeal, though it did not say in what venue.

“We are working with the Student Association lawyer and our insurance agent to examine the implications of the ruling, with the goal of finding the best possible solution for the entire student body as a whole,” the statement said.

The J-Board ruling specifies that the SA would be in violation of its constitution and bylaws if it failed to reinstate NYPIRG’s charter or cease attempts to remove the group from its office.