A constitutional lawyer has filed a legal challenge in Quebec Superior Court against a 2022 Quebec law that eliminated the mandatory Oath of Allegiance to the King for members of the province’s National Assembly. The lawsuit, brought by the Public Interest Litigation Institute and its founder Lawrence David, argues that the provincial government exceeded its constitutional authority.

Quebec’s Bill 4, which was unanimously passed in December 2022, is at the center of the challenge. The law amended the Constitution Act of 1867 to specify that Quebec legislators are no longer required to pledge allegiance to the monarch.

The lawsuit contends that Quebec needed the unanimous consent of the House of Commons, the Senate, and all provincial legislatures to abolish the mandatory oath. It also alleges that the law violates Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by denying effective representation to politicians who do not take the oath.

With the upcoming provincial election on Oct. 5, the lawsuit raises concerns that laws passed by an assembly with members who haven’t sworn allegiance may be invalidated.

Lawrence David, the lawyer behind the challenge, stated that the lawsuit was motivated by personal and professional reasons, emphasizing the importance of political institutions adhering to constitutional rules.

In response to the legal action, the office of Quebec Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette affirmed the province’s intent to defend its authority to modify its regulations. A spokesperson emphasized that the majority of Quebecers oppose the monarchy and that the legislative change reflects the will of the Quebec nation.

The office of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada declined to comment on the matter, citing ongoing legal proceedings. The Supreme Court of Canada recently announced its decision to review a case regarding the constitutionality of requiring aspiring lawyers to swear allegiance to the reigning monarch, following a ruling in Alberta that deemed the practice unconstitutional and a violation of religious freedom.