460 P.3d 832
Kan.2020Background:
- Governor Kelly declared a state of disaster emergency for COVID-19 on March 12, 2020 under K.S.A. 48-924 and the Legislature adopted HCR 5025 ratifying/continuing the declaration through May 1, 2020.
- HCR 5025 purported to authorize the Legislative Coordinating Council (LCC) to act for the Legislature "following such State Finance Council action," including revoking gubernatorial orders.
- On April 7 the Governor issued Executive Order 20-18 restricting "mass gatherings" and narrowing certain exemptions (notably removing religious gatherings from an exemption).
- On April 8 the LCC met under HCR 5025 and voted 5–2 to revoke EO 20-18; Governor Kelly filed an expedited quo warranto action challenging the LCC's authority.
- The Kansas Supreme Court held the LCC’s revocation was legally ineffective because HCR 5025 plainly required prior State Finance Council action that did not occur; the House and Senate were dismissed as parties.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kelly) | Defendant's Argument (LCC/Houses) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HCR 5025 authorized the LCC to revoke EO 20-18 | HCR 5025’s text conditions LCC power on prior State Finance Council action; none occurred, so LCC lacked authority | HCR 5025 authorizes LCC to represent Legislature and revoke orders; practical/negotiated intent permitted action | Held: LCC lacked authority—HCR 5025 requires State Finance Council action first; revocation was a nullity |
| Whether the House and Senate are proper parties/capable of being sued | Kelly named them as respondents to vindicate legislative action | Legislative bodies participated but did not assert immunity/capacity defense | Held: House and Senate dismissed as parties; unnecessary and court avoids creating precedent on capacity to be sued |
| Whether the LCC has independent statutory power under K.S.A. 46-1202 to revoke EO 20-18 despite HCR 5025’s limits | Kelly: general LCC statute cannot override specific KEMA scheme; revocation power must align with K.S.A. 48-924/48-925 | LCC: K.S.A. 46-1202 grants power to represent Legislature when not in session and thus to act | Held: If LCC had any such power it must be consonant with specific KEMA statutes; general statute cannot displace the specific emergency scheme |
| Whether the Court will resolve constitutional or religious-liberty claims arising from EO 20-18 | Kelly framed broader constitutional objections | Respondents raised separation-of-powers/presentment and policy defenses | Held: Court declined to reach merits of constitutional or religious-liberty claims; decision rests on the plain text of HCR 5025 and statutory interpretation |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Schmidt v. Kelly, 309 Kan. 887 (2019) (discussing prudence of naming legislative bodies as parties and related precedent)
- Legislative Coordinating Council v. Stanley, 264 Kan. 690 (1998) (treating LCC as an agency whose authority is defined by statute)
- Merryfield v. Sullivan, 301 Kan. 397 (2015) (specific statute controls over general statute on same topic)
- State ex rel. Stephan v. Kansas House of Representatives, 236 Kan. 45 (1984) (concurrent resolutions cannot adopt/modify administrative rules without presentment)
- Nauheim v. City of Topeka, 309 Kan. 145 (2019) (courts must give effect to plain legislative text and may not add or subtract words)