253 So. 3d 297
Miss.2018Background
- In FY2017 Governor Phil Bryant directed State Fiscal Officer Laura Jackson to make multiple mid-year reductions to state agency budgets (totaling tens of millions, including a $19.8M cut to the MAEP school-funding formula).
- Rep. Bryant W. Clark and Sen. John Horhn sued the Governor, Fiscal Officer, MDE, and Treasurer seeking declaratory relief that Miss. Code § 27-104-13 is unconstitutional (facially or as-applied), a permanent injunction against the cuts, and a writ of mandamus reversing MAEP reductions.
- The chancery court denied preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, consolidated the hearing with trial, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice; the legislators appealed.
- § 27-104-13 authorizes the State Fiscal Officer to reduce agency general-fund allocations if receipts fall below 98% of the adopted revenue estimate and permits transfers from the Working Cash–Stabilization Reserve; it also requires notice to the Legislative Budget Office.
- The Supreme Court reviewed de novo, applying the strong presumption of constitutionality and the doctrine from Alexander v. State distinguishing legislative budget-making from executive budget-control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 27-104-13 violates separation of powers by letting the Executive alter appropriations | Clark/Horhn: statute improperly permits Executive to exercise legislative power over appropriations | Executive: statute governs budget-control (an executive function); provides standards and is consistent with constitutional duties to balance and execute the budget | Held: statute constitutional; reductions were executive budget-control, not usurpation of legislative appropriation power |
| Whether Executive’s mid-year reductions unlawfully changed legislative appropriations | Plaintiffs: cuts amounted to reducing appropriations enacted by Legislature | Executive: appropriations fix maximum sums; statute permits adjusting expenditures below that maximum to keep budget balanced | Held: appropriation is a maximum, not a mandate to spend; reductions were within executive authority |
| Whether § 27-104-13 is void for vagueness or improper delegation | Plaintiffs: statute delegates legislative power without adequate standards | Executive: statute sets clear trigger (98% of estimate), caps/exemptions, and reporting requirements | Held: statute provides adequate guidance; presumption of constitutionality not overcome |
| Whether Governor’s language ("reductions to appropriations") shows intent to usurp legislative power | Plaintiffs: wording demonstrates intent to change appropriations | Executive: isolated phrasing, no evidence Governor intended to perform budget-making; actions fit statutory budget-control scheme | Held: wording insufficient to rebut presumption; context shows executive acted within authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. State By & Through Allain, 441 So. 2d 1329 (Miss. 1983) (distinguishing legislative budget-making from executive budget-control)
- INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (separation-of-powers principles and limits on legislative intrusion into executive functions)
- Johnson v. Sysco Food Servs., 86 So. 3d 242 (Miss. 2012) (standard: strong presumption of constitutionality; challenger bears burden)
- 5K Farms, Inc. v. Miss. Dep’t of Revenue, 94 So. 3d 221 (Miss. 2012) (statutes must clearly conflict with constitution to be struck down)
- State ex rel. Hood v. Louisville Tire Ctr., Inc., 55 So. 3d 1068 (Miss. 2011) (reiterating heavy presumption of constitutionality)