Robinson v. Shapp
Decision Date | 30 January 1976 |
Citation | 350 A.2d 464,23 Pa.Cmwlth. 153 |
Parties | , 16 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1346 Richard ROBINSON, Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situate, Plaintiff, v. Milton J. SHAPP, Individually and as Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Defendant. |
Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Michael Hahalyak, Pittsburgh, for plaintiff.
Before BOWMAN, President Judge, and CRUMLISH, Jr., KRAMER, WILKINSON, MENCER, ROGERS and BLATT, JJ.
This action is before us in our original jurisdiction of preliminary objections filed by the defendant to the plaintiff's complaint in equity. The complaint seeks injunctive relief to set aside the Governor's Executive Order No. 1975--5. The order is entitled 'Expansion of the Commitment Toward Equal Rights' and provides:
'In furtherance of my commitment to provide leadership in the effort to obtain equal rights for all persons in Pennsylvania, I am committing this administration to work towards ending discrimination against persons solely because of their affectional or sexual preference.
'State departments and agencies are instructed to fully cooperate with them in the effort to end this type of discrimination.'
The prayer for relief in the complaint is:
The defendant raises a number of preliminary objections. However, we need only consider the objection raising the question of justiciability. The disposition of this question is dispositive of the case. This is stated in the preliminary objections as follows:
'WHEREFORE, defendant requests that this Honorable Court decline to exercise its jurisdiction and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed.'
We sustain this preliminary objection. Only recently, this Court decided the case of Sweeney v. Tucker, --- Pa.Cmwlth ---, 351 A.2d 308 (filed January 14, 1976), in which we held that the expulsion of a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives was within the exclusive power of the House of Representatives, and that its propriety was not justiciable. In that case, Judge Rogers, speaking for the Court, stated:
'Nothing is more important to the continued health of our American constitutional shstem than that each of the three branches of our Federal and State governments refrain from intermeddling or interfering in matters committed by the people to other branches. It would seem that the judiciary, which alone of the branches has claimed the power to declare unlawful and to nullify actions of the other branches, should be particularly circumspect to avoid such interference.
When the desirability of avoiding judicial action in a given matter has preponderated, the courts have professed adherence to a proclaimed principle that the judiciary will not decide political questions--that political questions are not justiciable. The subject is fully and definitively explored by Mr. Justice Brennan in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 208, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962).'
The Governor has issued the Executive Order quoted above as the policy of his administration. The complaint does not allege that the issuing of the policy is against the Crimes Code. It is not illegal to have an 'affectional or sexual preference'. If the affectional or sexual preference leads one into deviate sexual intercourse in violation of the criminal laws of this Commonwealth, that individual continues to be subject to the penalties of the law. However, the declaration that that individual, with such a deviate affectional or sexual preference that he or she may have had in the past or may in the future commit a criminal act, shall not be discriminated against by state departments or agencies is merely a statement of policy, wise or otherwise.
This is not to say, nor does the defendant argue, that the Governor is above the law. Indeed, in his brief, the defendant candidly and accurately states:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Solid Wastes Management Ass'n v. Casey
... ... Shapp v. Butera, 22 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 229, 348 A.2d 910 (1975), we identified three types of executive orders: (1) formal, ceremonial, political orders, ... Robinson v. Shapp, 23 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 153, 350 A.2d 464 (1976). Thus, in Pagano, we indicated [135 Pa.Cmwlth. 143] that for a challenge to an executive ... ...
-
Wilt v. Com., Dept. of Revenue
... ... In this connection, our opinion in Robinson v. Shapp, 23 Pa.Cmwlth. 153, 350 A.2d 464 (1976), is instructive. There, in a case also involving an executive order of the Governor, we sustained a ... ...
-
Robinson v. Shapp
...for appellee. Before EAGEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ. OPINION PER CURIAM: Decree affirmed. 23 Pa.Cmwlth. 153, 350 A.2d 464. Each party to pay own ...