On July 1, in Wolf v. Scarnati, a divided Supreme Court of Pennsylvania rejected House Resolution 836, in which the Commonwealth’s General Assembly attempted to terminate Governor Tom Wolf’s Proclamation of Disaster Emergency. [Read more about the background of this case here.] For the second time during the pandemic, the court invoked its seldom-used King’s Bench Powers to exercise jurisdiction, as it had in April in Friends of Danny DeVito v. Wolf. [Read more about that case here.] In so doing, the court demonstrated its continuing interest in promptly resolving fundamental issues related to COVID-19.

The underlying legal issue was the court’s interpretation of the Emergency Management Services Code, 35 Pa. C.S. Section 7301(c), under which Gov. Wolf issued the Proclamation to which the General Assembly responded with H.R. 836. The court held that H.R. 836 is a “legal nullity” because Section 7301(c) requires concurrent resolutions to be “presented” to the Governor for approval or veto. The General Assembly did not do so.

Writing for a four-justice majority, Justice David Wecht expressed no opinion on the competing policy considerations regarding COVID-19 that gave rise to H.R. 836. Instead, the majority based its decision on separation of powers principles, holding that, in Section 7301(c), “[t]he General Assembly itself decided to delegate power to the Governor . . . Current members of the General Assembly may regret that decision, but they cannot use an unconstitutional means to give that regret legal effect.”

In a concurring and dissenting opinion, Justice Kevin Dougherty agreed that H.R. 836 violated the presentment requirement. But unlike the majority, he would have held that Section 7301(c) violates the Pennsylvania Constitution by creating a new exception to the presentment requirement. In a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy, Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor would have upheld H.R. 836.

The court’s decision definitively resolves the scope of Gov. Wolf’s authority to renew or extend his Proclamation of Disaster Emergency, ensuring the Proclamation will remain in effect until terminated by the Governor. The Governor’s authority to issue particular emergency orders under that Proclamation, however, remains subject to unresolved constitutional challenges (including under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment). [Read more about one such case still pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania here.]

If you have any questions or need help with an Eminent Domain matter, please contact Team Leader Michael Sklaroff, or team members Ed Rogers or Paul Ort.


Copyright © 2020 by Ballard Spahr LLP.
www.ballardspahr.com
(No claim to original U.S. government material.)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and publisher.

This alert is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr LLP and is intended to notify recipients of new developments in the law. It should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own attorney concerning your situation and specific legal questions you have.