Supreme Court Nomination Concerns and Dippikill Plans Return to Senate

By Lucienne Burns | March 30, 2026

Senators at the last senate meeting (3/11) before Spring Break.  Photo Credit: Lucienne Burns / The ASP 

At the last Student Association (SA) Senate meeting, which took place before Spring Break, past issues presented themselves on the legislative agenda once again. 

On the agenda, there were two nominations for associate justice positions on the Supreme Court. The application for this process came under question last semester, when a candidate whose acceptance was rescinded spoke before the senate during public comment to voice his concerns. 

Concerns with Supreme Court Application Process

Sophomore Brandon Bermingham interviewed for the associate justice position last semester and was initially accepted in an email from Vice President Allison Mitchell. He later received another email that there had been an issue with the nomination process, and that President Trevor Pettit would be taking over the process and would conduct another round of interviews. 

Bermingham’s acceptance was rescinded, and he received a rejection letter after he re-interviewed.

“I became aware that the President and Vice President were experiencing internal conflict, which appeared to have coincided with the timing of my rescinded offer,” Bermingham said at last semester's meeting on Nov. 5, 2025. “I believe that the candidate who was selected instead is known to be close friends with the president… I believe that this friendship may have influenced the outcome of the candidacy.” 

Bermingham came to speak at the senate's public comment again at the latest meeting held on March 11, expressing similar concerns of an unfair process, as he re-applied to the position this semester and was rejected again on March 6. 

Bermingham distributed a compilation of email exchanges and various documents to senators prior to the meeting, including a recommendation letter from former Chief Justice James Cuddy that he had included in his application.

“I was a candidate for the Associate Justice position both this semester and last. I believe that the interview process was not fair and I’m being retaliated against,” said Bermingham, while referencing the documents he compiled. “The president acknowledges my qualifications and my excellent interview. He then says that he didn't choose me because I spoke during the public comment. The purpose of the public comment is to voice concerns…he said he wants to avoid perceptions of conflict of interest if matters involved in the executive branch came before the court.”

Five other students attended the public comment and spoke on behalf of Bermingham to explain why he was deserving of the position. 

During debate, multiple senators expressed concerns surrounding the impartiality of the application process. 

“I cannot stress enough the importance of our job as the Senate to act as a check on the executive branch,” said Senator Maceo Foster. “I would also raise the issue that if the perception of conflict of interest was so important to the president, then why did the president rescind a nomination last semester in order to appoint his friend to the court?”

“How is it possible that we can ask the nominee that we want to appoint, that we said, yes, this is who we want to put on the court, ask them about bias and not follow that same standard?” asked Senator Marcos Perez during debate. 

Perez, along with other senators, suggested potential violations and read from the senate bylaws, also expressing concerns about what parties were involved in the nomination process.

“The vice president shall be part of the interview process for all applicable positions of the Student Association. Plain and simple, black and white text,” said Senator Craig Brown reading from the bylaws. “We are not permitted to pass these nominations.” 

Chair Troy Serao reminded senators that “there [had] not been a formal investigation into senate bylaws possibly being violated" at that point.

Vice President Mitchell confirmed later that she was not present for the interview process of the nominees, and that she did not know who they were until the meeting began.

Senators continued to echo concerns about Bermingham’s rejections from the position. 

“He continues to show out in his resume that he's more than qualified for this position, and we're sitting here ignoring him — for what reason, I don't understand…no matter who you are, what you believe in, accountability is key,” said Senator Alana Borrero. 

“One of the constituents that we represent has been routinely and deliberately denied a fair and equal application process” said Senator Jelani Harris. “And when he is concerned about regularities within said process, he was punished by the chief executive in ways that I can only describe as unfair, unjust, and underserved.”

Senators throughout the debate apologized to the two associate justice nominees that were present at the meeting. Senators said that their opposition to the candidates' appointments was not about their qualifications, but rather the manner in which the selection process was conducted.

Harris said that he had no “ill will” against the two nominees, and that they were both qualified for the position. 

“It is important that the Court remains impartial and operates in a manner that reflects fairness, professionalism, and trust. Recent actions surrounding the nomination process raised concerns about maintaining that standard, and those considerations informed my decision,” said President Pettit in an email to the ASP. “I remain committed to working collaboratively with Court leadership and the broader Student Association to ensure the Court is fully staffed and functioning effectively. I look forward to continued dialogue as we move toward filling the vacancies.” 

Both sponsors motioned to table the nomination bills until further notice. 

Later in the meeting, Vice President Mitchell spoke about perceived problems with SA election processes, mentioning not only the associate justice applications, but past ones such as the Board of Finance chair election and the elections commission process. 

“I will no longer sit here and continue to watch the turning of a blind eye to blatant disrespect, abuse of power and injustice," said Vice President Mitchell. 

A senator asked Vice President Mitchell if she was given a reason why she was initially responsible for the associate justice selection last semester, but later removed from the process. 

“My phone was called during fall break, and I was met with the words, ‘who gave you the authority,’ after being provided explicit authority,” said Vice President Mitchell. 

Senators were left with questions unanswered on what the next steps were or whether the process would be reopened. The next senate meeting is set to take place Wednesday, April 1, as Spring Break and the Presidential Candidate Forum replaced regular meetings over the last two weeks. 

A Solution for Dippikill

The senate voted on a finalized Dippikill terms sheet following its closure in 2024, which has been in the works since last year following the three-way fiscal responsibility plan proposed in December.

The terms sheet divides fiscal responsibility between the Student Association, University Auxiliary Services (UAS) and the Alumni Association. It also transfers the operational aspect to UAS, taking management burdens off of SA. 

SA will pay $126,000 annually for three years, beginning March 1, 2026, toward costs that are necessary for Dippikill’s reopening and management. If an increased amount is needed, the change would “require explicit approval from the Student Association Senate,” according to the terms sheet. 

“By transferring operational management to University Auxiliary Services and creating a shared governance model with UAS and the Alumni Association, the agreement ensures professional management of the facility while maintaining student representation in decision-making,” the terms sheet reads.

Chair Serao thanked all of the parties involved, such as the president and comptroller, along with other groups for working on the agreement. 

“I’m really appreciative that in this agreement, in particular the UAS staff will now be overseeing the employees of Dippikill, which will hopefully avoid any discrepancies in the future with wage hour disputes as well,” said Chair Serao. 

While a few senators expressed concerns of reopening the camp on land that they said was stolen from indigenous groups during debate, the terms sheet passed the senate 34-0-5. 

“Overall, the reorganization provides a sustainable path forward to reopen and maintain Dippikill as a resource for current and future members of the University at Albany community,” the terms sheet reads.