Pa. Justices to Eye Row Between Wolf, General Assembly on Resolution to End COVID-19 Emergency
The dispute is the latest challenge Wolf has faced over the emergency declarations he enacted in early March, which helped lay the foundation for statewide shutdowns the governor enacted as the COVID-19 pandemic began to unfold.
June 17, 2020 at 03:44 PM
4 minute read
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to take up a dispute between Gov. Tom Wolf and the General Assembly over whether it can compel the governor to end a statewide emergency proclamation that Wolf enacted in March to help stem the spread of the coronavirus.
On Wednesday, the justices granted Wolf's petition asking the high court to take up the case in its King's Bench jurisdiction. The move stays proceedings that Pennsylvania Senate Republicans had filed in the Commonwealth Court, which sought to compel Wolf to end the state of emergency.
The dispute is the latest challenge Wolf has faced over the emergency declarations he enacted in early March, which helped lay the foundation for statewide shutdowns the governor enacted as the COVID-19 pandemic began to unfold. The leading challenge to Wolf's authority was also decided by the Supreme Court in its King's Bench jurisdiction. In that case, Friends of Danny DeVito v. Wolf, which a group of business leaders filed in late March, the justices ultimately denied the request to strike down Wolf's shutdown order.
The issues the Supreme Court agreed to take up Wednesday focus not on whether Wolf has the authority to issue emergency declarations, but instead whether, and by what process, the legislature can end a governor's emergency orders.
The latest dispute can be traced back to a resolution the legislature adopted June 9 compelling Wolf to end his emergency order. Wolf, however, did not act on the resolution, arguing that the legislature cannot simply compel him to cancel the order, but rather the resolution must be submitted to him to either be signed, or vetoed.
Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson; Majority Leader Jake Corman, R-Centre; and the Senate Republican Caucus then sued in the Commonwealth Court, contending that state statute 35 Pa.C.S. Section 7301(c) allows the General Assembly to end state of emergency proclamations "at any time" by adopting a concurrent resolution doing so.
According to the complaint, filed June 10 by Kleinbard's Matthew Haverstick, Wolf's refusal to follow the mandates of the concurrent resolution improperly steps on the legislature's powers.
"Despite this simple statutory check-and-balance system, the viability of which was central to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's recent decision on this very subject, Governor Wolf has refused to end the COVID-19 state of disaster emergency, even though the General Assembly adopted a concurrent resolution on June 9, 2020 compelling him to do just that," the caucus said in the filing.
Wolf, however, countered those efforts by filing the King's Bench petition to the high court, telling the justices the Senate's efforts to unilaterally end the emergency proclamation violates the presentment clause of the state's constitution and is an issue the justices must address quickly.
"The separation of powers and checks-and-balances among the three co-equal branches of government, are fundamental to our constitutional structure and the proper functioning of our commonwealth," Wolf said in the petition, which was filed by Chief Deputy Attorney General J. Bart DeLone. "At its heart, the General Assembly's failure to comply with the presentment clause constitutes a serious challenge to that structure."
The Supreme Court's order did not indicate when the case will be heard, but according to the docket, the Service Employees International Union sought leave to file an amicus brief.
A spokeswoman for Wolf's press office said in an emailed statement, "The governor is pleased that the Supreme Court will be taking up this very important matter expeditiously."
Haverstick declined to comment for the story.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAppeals Court Rules Pittsburgh School District Immune to Suit Over Sex Abuse of Disabled Student
4 minute readPa. Court Denies Procedurally Deficient Request for Delay Damages in $4.1M Personal Injury Verdict
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250