Scarnati v. Wolf
| Decision Date | 22 November 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 3 MAP 2016,3 MAP 2016 |
| Citation | 173 A.3d 1110 |
| Parties | Joseph B. SCARNATI, Senator and President Pro Tempore of the Senate of Pennsylvania; Jake Corman, Senator and Majority Leader of the Senate of Pennsylvania; Jay Costa, Senator and Minority Leader of the Senate of Pennsylvania, Appellants v. Tom WOLF, Governor of Pennsylvania; Randy Albright, Secretary of the Budget ; Timothy A. Reese, State Treasurer of Pennsylvania; Dennis M. Davin, Secretary of Community and Economic Development; Cindy Adams Dunn, Secretary of Conservation and Natural Resources; John H. Quigley, Secretary of Environmental Protection; Curtis M. Topper, Secretary of General Services; Kathy Manderino, Secretary of Labor & Industry; Major General James R. Joseph, Adjutant General of Pennsylvania; Josh Shapiro, Chairman of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, Appellees |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Rodney A. Corey, Esq., James Guthrie Mann, Esq., Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Tara Lynn Hazelwood, Esq., Jason Michael Staloski, Esq., Nora Winkelman, Esq., for Amicus Curiae Republican and Democratic Caucuses of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.
Anthony Richard Holtzman, Esq., John P. Krill Jr., Esq., K & L Gates LLP, for Appellants.
Mark Alan Aronchick, Esq., Dylan Joshua Steinberg, Esq., Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, P.C., for Governor of Pennsylvania and Secretary of the Budget, Appellee.
Linda Cadden Barrett, Esq., Denise Joy Smyler, Esq., Office of General Counsel, for Thomas Wolf, Governor of PA, et al, Appellee.
Christopher B. Craig, Esq., Kathryn Cerulli Joyce, Esq., PA Department of Treasury, Christopher Patrick Donahue, Esq., for Pennsylvania Treasury Department, Appellee.
OPINION
In a petition for review filed in the Commonwealth Court's original jurisdiction, a group of state senators ("the Senators") challenged as unconstitutional the Governor's partial disapproval of the General Appropriations Act of 2014 ("GAA")1 and the 2014 Fiscal Code Amendments ("FCA").2 The Commonwealth Court denied the Senators' request for summary relief. We agree with the Senators that the Governor's attempted partial vetoes of the proposed legislation failed to adhere to the requirements of Article IV, Section 15, of the Pennsylvania Constitution. We therefore reverse the Commonwealth Court's decision denying the Senators summary relief on Count I of their petition for review.
The GAA and the FCA originated in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and ultimately passed both legislative chambers. On July 1, 2014, the General Assembly presented the GAA to former Governor Tom Corbett for his consideration. On July 9, 2014, the lawmakers similarly presented the FCA to the Governor for his consideration. The House of Representatives adjourned that same day.3
The following day, July 10, 2014, the Governor approved in part and disapproved in part the GAA and the FCA, utilizing the line-item veto. See PA. CONST. art. IV, § 16. The Governor's partial disapproval of the GAA, inter alia , reduced the amount appropriated to the Senate for various expenses, including: salaries and personal expenses of Senate employees; expenses of the office of the President Pro Tempore of the Senate; Senate expenses for lodging, meals, and incidentals; items such as furniture and technology upgrades; and the amount available for the caucus operations account. In addition, the Governor reduced the appropriation for "Heritage and Other Parks" by $500,000. Petition for Review, Reproduced Record ("R.R.") at 279a.
With regard to the FCA, the Governor completely disapproved of seven provisions that corresponded with the disapproved portions of the GAA. These included Section 1724–J, which transferred funds from the Department of General Services to the legislative branch for distribution upon approval by the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and the Majority Leader of the House. The Governor also disapproved of Section 1720–J of the FCA, which provided that, from funds appropriated for Heritage and other parks, $500,000 "shall be used for the operation and maintenance of the Washington Crossing Historical Park," R.R. 21a, and Section 1716–J, which directed the allocation of funds to pay dues "for fiscal years 2013–2014 and 2014–2015 to a commission of the Atlantic coastal states that coordinates the conservation and management of near-shore fish species." Id. at 20a.
On July 10, 2014, the Governor returned copies of the bills and the Governor's objections to the House Parliamentarian. The Governor also delivered the signed GAA and FCA, together with his line-item vetoes and several copies, to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, and asked the Secretary to assign act numbers to the bills and to retain the copies. The Secretary complied, assigning to the GAA the designation "Act No. 2014–1A" and to the FCA the designation "Act No. 2014–126." R.R. 18a.
Also on July 10, 2014, the Office of the Budget issued a press release announcing that the Governor had signed the GAA and FCA, and detailing the various line-item vetoes in each bill. R.R. 661–64. This press release was made publicly available on the Commonwealth's website. The House did not record the Governor's objections to the legislation in its journals and did not reconsider the GAA or the FCA. Instead, the General Assembly adjourned sine die on November 12, 2014, and took no further action on either bill.4
On November 4, 2014, the Senators filed a petition for review ("PFR") against the Governor and various executive-branch officials (collectively, "the Governor") in the Commonwealth Court.5 On March 9, 2015, the Senators sought declaratory and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of the Governor's line-item vetoes of the GAA and FCA. A brief review of the relevant provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution will aid in understanding the parties' respective positions.
A general appropriation bill is one of the exceptions to the single subject rule of Article III, Section 3. That section provides: "No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except a general appropriation bill or a bill codifying or compiling the law or a part thereof." PA. CONST. art. III, § 3. This exception is limited by the Constitution, which restricts the scope of a general appropriation bill as follows: Id. art. III, § 11. Article III, Section 24 provides that:
No money shall be paid out of the treasury, except on appropriations made by law and on warrant issued by the proper officers; but cash refunds of taxes, licenses, fees and other charges paid or collected, but not legally due, may be paid, as provided by law, without appropriation from the fund into which they were paid on warrant of the proper officer.
The Governor's veto authority is provided in Article IV, Sections 15 and 16 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Section 15 sets forth the procedure by which the Governor vetoes a bill, while Section 16 establishes the Governor's line-item veto power. These sections provide:
In Count I of their PFR, the Senators alleged that the Governor's attempted line-item vetoes of portions of the GAA and FCA were invalid because the Governor did not follow the procedure established in Article IV, Section 15. The Senators' argument in this regard was twofold. First, the Senators claimed that, pursuant to Article IV, Section 15, the Governor was prevented from returning the bills to the House on July 10, 2014, because the House had adjourned on July 9, 2014. According to the Senators, this temporary adjournment prevented the effective return of the bills and objections. Second, the Senators asserted, because the House had adjourned on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. Chapman
...plan was not entitled to such deference because it "was never enacted into law").18 As this Court explained in Scarnati v. Wolf , 643 Pa. 474, 173 A.3d 1110, 1120 (2017), by "conferring upon the Governor the authority to nullify legislation that has passed both legislative houses, [Pa. Cons......
-
Yanakos v. UPMC
...on the General Assembly's power to enact legislation that curtails or eliminates a common law cause of action. See Scarnati v. Wolf , 643 Pa. 474, 173 A.3d 1110, 1118 (2017) (explaining that, when interpreting a provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we should "consider the circumstanc......
-
Brouillette v. Wolf
...becoming law if the legislature "stands adjourned when the President's consideration period comes to a close.[20] Scarnati v. Wolf , 643 Pa. 474, 173 A.3d 1110, 1120-21 (2017) (citations and footnote omitted and emphasis added). See also Commonwealth ex rel. Attorney General v. Barnett , 19......
-
Marcellus Shale Coal. v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot. of Pa., 573 M.D. 2016
...court may on application enter judgment if the right of the applicant thereto is clear." Pa. R.A.P. 1532(b) ; see Scarnati v. Wolf , ––– Pa. ––––, 173 A.3d 1110, 1118 (2017) ("The standard for granting summary relief turns upon whether the applicant's right to relief is clear. Summary relie......