Reeves v. Gunn
| Decision Date | 17 December 2020 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2020-CA-01107-SCT,2020-CA-01107-SCT |
| Citation | 307 So.3d 436 |
| Parties | Governor Tate REEVES v. Representative Philip GUNN and Representative Jason White |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: MICHAEL JAMES BENTLEY, Jackson, JOHN MICHAEL COLEMAN, PAUL E. BARNES, MOLLY MITCHELL WALKER, WILSON DOUGLAS MINOR, Jackson
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: R. ANDREW TAGGART, JR., ELLEN VIRGINIA ROYAL
EN BANC.
¶1. Our Constitution is a sacred compact among the people of this State. Miss. Const. Art. 3, § 5. No single person or branch of this government can unilaterally amend our Constitution or ignore its dictates. Today's case revolves around allegations by the Speaker of the House and the Speaker Pro Tempore that the Governor has ignored the dictates of our Constitution. Specifically, they allege that the Governor's decision to strike parts of House Bill 1782 exceeded his authority to partially veto appropriation bills. The Governor responds that the partial veto did not transgress the bounds of article 4, section 73, of the Mississippi Constitution.
¶2. It is our duty to interpret our Constitution when its meaning is put at issue. Alexander v. State ex rel. Allain, 441 So. 2d 1329, 1333 (Miss. 1983), overruled on other grounds by 5K Farms, Inc. v. Miss. Dep't of Revenue, 94 So. 3d 221 (Miss. 2012). We will not shirk this duty. Having reviewed the record of the chancery court proceeding, pertinent sections of our Constitution, and case law addressing partial vetoes, we conclude the Governor did not exceed the power of his office. His partial veto comports with section 73 of our Constitution and therefore carried with it the authority endowed that office by the people of Mississippi. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the chancery court holding otherwise.
¶3. The Congress of the United States passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which was signed into law by the president. Under the CARES Act, $1.25 billion was allocated to Mississippi to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.
¶4. The Legislature ultimately passed several bills appropriating these monies. One of these bills, House Bill 1782, was an omnibus bill1 appropriating monies to the Mississippi Development Authority, the State Department of Health, the State Department of Mental Health, and the Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning. The monies were to be spent for a multitude of purposes. The federal government conditioned all expenditures by the state to satisfy rules codified in the CARES Act and regulations established by the United States Department of the Treasury.
¶5. House Bill 1782 was sent to the Governor on July 2, 2020. On July 8, 2020, the Governor invoked section 73 of our Constitution to veto two parts of House Bill 1782. Specifically, the Governor vetoed the provision that the Mississippi Department of Health disburse $2 million of funds to Tate County and the provision that the Mississippi Department of Health disburse $6 million of funds to the MAGnet Community Health Disparity Program. See Appendix A. The Governor approved the remaining parts of House Bill 1782 consistent with section 73.
¶6. On August 5, 2020, two individual members of the House of Representatives, the Speaker of the House and the Speaker Pro Tempore of the House, filed suit in Hinds County Chancery Court challenging the Governor's invocation of section 73. The Governor filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the chancery court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit. The Speaker and the Speaker Pro Tempore filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and the Governor supplemented his motion to dismiss with a motion for summary judgment.
¶7. The chancery court entered an order denying the Governor's motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. It granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings submitted by the Speaker and the Speaker Pro Tempore. The order rendered the partial veto a legal nullity and declared House Bill 1782 to be the law in its entirety. The Governor now appeals.
¶8. The Speaker and the Speaker Pro Tempore contend that the Governor violated our Constitution. Constitutional questions are reviewed de novo by this Court. Thoms v. Thoms, 928 So. 2d 852, 855 (Miss. 2006) (citing Baker v. State, 802 So. 2d 77, 80 (Miss. 2001) ).
¶9. The Governor begins by arguing the chancellor erred by finding that the Speaker of the House and the Speaker Pro Tempore had standing to bring this suit. The chancellor's decision was sound based on Fordice v. Bryan, 651 So. 2d 998 (Miss. 1995). The Fordice court held that "[i]ndividual legislators had standing to bring the instant action [challenging partial vetoes] under well established case law." Fordice, 651 So. 2d at 1003 (citing Van Slyke v. Bd. of Trs. of State Insts. of Higher Learning, 613 So. 2d 872, 875 (Miss. 1993) ; Bd. of Trs. of State Insts. of Higher Learning v. Van Slyke, 510 So. 2d 490 (Miss. 1987) ; Dye v. State ex rel. Hale, 507 So. 2d 332 (Miss. 1987) ; State ex rel. Moore v. Molpus, 578 So. 2d 624 (Miss. 1991) ). The rationale provided for this decision was that "[t]heir votes on [those] bills were adversely affected by the Governor's vetoes." Id.
¶10. "Stare decisis ‘is flexible enough to allow the Court to admit change under certain limited circumstances where the previous rule of law would perpetuate error and wrong would result if the decisions were followed.’ " Payton v. State, 266 So. 3d 630, 638 (Miss. 2019) (quoting Hye v. State, 162 So. 3d 750, 755 (Miss. 2015) ). We are convinced that the Fordice decision regarding standing has perpetuated error and that wrong would continue to result from it were we to allow it to stand.
¶11. In this state's standing jurisprudence, the term "colorable interest" entered our legal lexicon in Harrison County v. City of Gulfport, 557 So. 2d 780 (Miss. 1990). This admittedly amorphous term was used alongside the traditional articulation of "adverse impact" to describe when a party can assert standing to bring a suit. Harrison Cnty., 557 So. 2d at 782.2 The holding in Fordice granted any individual legislator the right to challenge vetoes of the Governor based on their status as legislators. This finding was erroneous. There are some scenarios in which legislators as legislators may not have an interest, colorable or otherwise, in a governor's veto or may not have suffered an adverse impact as a result of a governor's veto. Where the Legislature itself declines to challenge a governor's veto, an adverse impact may be felt by the individual legislator who voted for the bill as a result of the Legislature's actions, not the Governor's actions. Further, when a legislator individually votes against a bill that is later vetoed, that same legislator has no specialized interest in challenging a governor's actions. Given these examples, it was error to grant individual legislators standing solely on their basis as legislators.
¶12. It is not enough to merely diagnose error though under our stare decisis jurisprudence, that error must also perpetuate wrong. Payton, 266 So. 3d at 638. Here, this error of granting categorical standing to individual legislators perpetuates wrong by extending this Court's review beyond the bounds of judicial restraint and humility. In Mississippi, "constitutional issues are not reached if cases can be resolved upon other bases ...." Williams v. Stevens, 390 So. 2d 1012, 1014 (Miss. 1980). And in cases resonating with political disputes, such as those between our two sister branches of government, we must act with particular care.
[I]n a case raising delicate constitutional questions it is particularly incumbent first to satisfy the threshold inquiry whether we have any business to decide the case at all. Is there, in short, a litigant before us who has a claim presented in a form and under conditions "appropriate for judicial determination?" Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 240, 57 S. Ct. 461, 464, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937)
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S. 123, 150, 71 S. Ct. 624, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). Continuing to extend categorical standing without considering the nature of the claims before a court would offend basic jurisprudential principles. Therefore, finding that the Fordice holding regarding standing was erroneous and will perpetuate wrong, we overrule that holding prospectively.3
¶13. Both the Governor and the Speaker and the Speaker Pro Tempore advance the argument that today's dispute is controlled by article 4, sections 69, 72, and 73 of our Constitution. Section 73 of our Constitution grants the Governor authority to veto parts of any appropriations bill. Section 73 reads, verbatim: "the Governor may veto parts of any appropriation bill, and approve parts of the same, and the portions approved shall be law." Miss. Const. Art. 4, § 73. ¶14. Section 69 sets forth the contents of appropriation bills:
General appropriation bills shall contain only the appropriations to defray the ordinary expense of the executive, legislative, and judicial departments of the government; to pay interest on state bonds, and to support the common schools. All other appropriations shall be made by separate bills, each embracing but one subject. Legislation shall not be engrafted on the appropriation bills, but the same may prescribe the conditions on which the money may be drawn, and for what purposes paid.
¶15. Section 72 provides for approval or disapproval of bills by governors and the veto override process.4
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler v. Watson
...us and nowhere to turn but to its answer. "It is our duty to interpret our Constitution when its meaning is put at issue." Reeves v. Gunn , 307 So. 3d 436, 437 (¶ 2) (Miss. 2020) (citing Alexander v. State ex rel. Allain , 441 So. 2d 1329, 1333 (Miss. 1983), overruled on other grounds by 5K......
- Venture, Inc. v. Harris
-
Jackson Pub. Sch. Dist. v. Jackson Fed'n of Teachers & PSRPS
...abandoned the 'colorable interest' standard for establishing standing." In re Initiative Measure No. 65, 338 So.3d at 605 (quoting Reeves, 307 So.3d at 438-39). [2] Of JFT's five witnesses, Taylor, Anthony Gunter, Shannon Anderson, and Akemie Stout had worked for JPS while a member of JFT a......
-
Viking Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Miss. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co.
...not enough to merely diagnose error ... under our stare decisis jurisprudence, that error must also perpetuate wrong." Reeves v. Gunn , 307 So. 3d 436, 439 (Miss. 2020) (citing Payton v. State , 266 So. 3d 630, 638 (Miss. 2019) ). Even conceding that Farm Bureau is correct in assessing the ......