The federal separation of powers also has implications for State courts, due to the fact that State courts may be invested with federal judicial power under section 71 of the "Commonwealth Constitution". On this basis it was held in "Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)" that a State court could not be given a function inconsistent with its status as a potential repository of federal judicial power. The doctrine was rarely applied in the early years following Kable, leading Justice Kirby to describe it as "a constitutional guard-dog that would bark but once." However, there has been a revival in the High Court's application of the doctrine since 2009. One recent case was "South Australia v Totani," which involved a challenge to the validity of the "Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008" (SA). Section 14(1) of the Act required members of the Magistrates' Court of South Australia to make control orders on application by the Commissioner of Police, provided only that the Magistrate was satisfied that the person subject to the control order was a member of a declared organisation. Even though the functions of the Magistrates' Court under the Act are purely a matter of South Australian law, the fact that the Court is also capable of exercising federal jurisdiction was held to require that it maintain certain standards of independence and impartiality so that it retain the character of a court.