Leach, D. v. Turzai, M.
141 A.3d 426
| Pa. | 2016Background
- Act 192 began as HB 80 (theft of "secondary metal" added to Crimes Code) and later the Senate amended trespass provisions; a separate HB 1243 (changes to the Firearms Act, including standing to challenge municipal gun regulations and reporting requirements) existed concurrently.
- In the final hours of the 2014 session, substantive provisions of HB 1243 were folded into HB 80; the merged bill was approved by both Houses and signed by the Governor as Act 192.
- Plaintiffs (cities of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Lancaster and several legislators who voted against the bill) sued in Commonwealth Court, arguing Act 192 violated Article III, Section 1 (original-purpose) and Section 3 (single-subject) of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
- Commonwealth Court (en banc) granted summary relief, invalidating Act 192 as violating the single-subject rule because provisions creating theft/trespass crimes were unrelated to the civil cause of action to challenge municipal firearms laws.
- The Supreme Court affirmed: it rejected the legislature’s argument that "amending the Crimes Code" (or a narrower firearms-related Crimes Code theme) was a sufficient unifying subject, finding the links too attenuated and the combination violative of Article III, Section 3; the entire Act was declared void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Act 192 violates Article III, §3 (single-subject rule) | Leach: merging unrelated subjects (metal-theft crimes and a civil right to challenge local gun laws) prevented circumspect voting and concealed last-minute additions | Legislative leaders: all provisions amend the Crimes Code (or at least Crimes Code provisions affecting firearm ownership) and thus share a unifying theme | Held: Violation — "amending the Crimes Code" is too broad; firearm-ownership link is too indirect; Act 192 fails the single-subject test |
| Whether the original purpose of the bill was altered in violation of Article III, §1 | Leach: HB 80’s original purpose (theft of secondary metal) was changed by late additions regarding firearms and reporting, depriving public/legislators of meaningful consideration | Legislative leaders: changes were proper amendments during the legislative process | Court: Did not reach §1 because §3 invalidation made it unnecessary (Commonwealth Court had also ruled on §1) |
| Whether the court should defer to legislative breadth when a bill amends a broad statutory title | Leach: Title-based unity (the Crimes Code) cannot be used to legitimize disparate subjects | Legislative leaders & amici: Courts should defer; Crimes Code functions like a single "machine" allowing related amendments | Held: Rejected deference here; prior precedent forbids accepting an entire title as a unifying subject |
| Remedy when single-subject rule is violated | Leach: invalidate Act 192 | Legislative leaders: (implicitly) preserve parts or defer to legislature | Held: Entire Act voided — court will not sever parts when act violates single-subject rule |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Phila. v. Commonwealth, 575 Pa. 542, 838 A.2d 566 (Pa. 2003) (rejecting overly broad unifying subjects like an entire title and reaffirming single-subject purposes)
- Pa. State Ass’n of Jury Comm’rs v. Commonwealth, 619 Pa. 369, 64 A.3d 611 (Pa. 2013) (invalidating disparate provisions lacking a common nexus)
- Commonwealth v. Neiman, 624 Pa. 53, 84 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013) (striking an act that amended multiple unrelated statutory areas)
- Spahn v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 602 Pa. 83, 977 A.2d 1132 (Pa. 2009) (upholding amendments limited to a single, cohesive topic — the Home Rule Act of Philadelphia)
- Marcavage v. Rendell, 597 Pa. 371, 951 A.2d 345 (Pa. 2008) (discussing limits on using a code title as a unifying subject and addressing Article III constraints)
- Ritter v. Commonwealth, 521 Pa. 536, 557 A.2d 1064 (Pa. 1989) (earlier Commonwealth Court decision discussed; Supreme Court disapproved any reading of Ritter that allowed treating an entire title as a unifying subject)