A major victory for progressive jurisprudence arrived this week when a federal judge reportedly blocked government efforts to require cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, prompting legal scholars to ask whether reality itself might soon face constitutional challenges.
The ruling immediately inspired activists nationwide to identify other oppressive forces that appear to be coercing people without proper consent.
Leading the list was gravity.
"For centuries, gravity has disproportionately impacted vulnerable communities by forcing everyone downward regardless of their lived experience," explained Professor Skylar Equity of the Institute for Inclusive Physics. "Frankly, we're shocked nobody challenged this sooner."
Several state governments quickly announced exploratory lawsuits against gravity, weather, and basic arithmetic.
"Why should two plus two always equal four?" asked one state legislator. "That sounds suspiciously like an inflexible system imposed by people who enjoy counting."
Legal experts hailed the emerging doctrine as the next frontier of constitutional law.
"If governments cannot encourage cooperation with federal law, perhaps apples should no longer be required to cooperate with trees," said constitutional analyst Trevor Balance. "The implications are enormous."
Municipal leaders wasted no time adapting.
One city established a Department of Voluntary Falling, where residents can decide whether they wish to participate in gravity on any given day.
A spokesperson assured citizens that all impacts with sidewalks would remain optional.
Meanwhile, a coalition of activist attorneys filed emergency motions demanding injunctions against several additional coercive institutions, including calendars, alarm clocks, and expiration dates.
"We're simply asking for freedom from unwanted consequences," said one organizer. "Nobody should be forced to arrive late just because they ignored the passage of time."
The movement gained support from university administrators, who announced that students failing exams would now be considered victims of "academic border enforcement."
A professor praised the change.
"Knowledge shouldn't be a prerequisite for passing," he explained. "That standard unfairly privileges students who studied."
Critics argue the trend may be getting out of hand.
One bewildered taxpayer asked whether laws still existed.
Officials reassured him that laws absolutely still exist and will continue being enforced against anyone who disagrees with the right people.
By press time, activists were celebrating another legal breakthrough after a judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing mirrors from displaying unauthorized reflections.
Supporters called it a triumph over visual coercion.
