213 A.3d 341
Pa. Commw. Ct.2019Background
- Petitioners (two taxpayers and one state representative) challenged Pennsylvania budget actions for FY2016-17 and FY2017-18, alleging unbalanced budgets, unconstitutional borrowing, and failure of Governor to veto unconstitutional appropriations.
- Key facts: FY2016-17 ended with an alleged $1.55 billion deficit; the Commonwealth used intra-governmental lines of credit (including a $750 million line in Aug. 2017) and other borrowing; the FY2017-18 General Appropriations Bill ($31.38 billion) became law when the Governor did not act and initially lacked enacted revenue measures.
- Petitioners sought declaratory relief under state constitutional provisions (Art. IV veto provisions; Art. VIII balanced-budget, debt, and credit restrictions) and related Administrative Code provisions.
- Respondents filed multiple preliminary objections asserting lack of standing, failure to state claims, non-justiciability, sovereign/legislative immunity, mootness, and laches. Senate respondents also moved to dismiss Count II as moot.
- The Court addressed standing, misjoinder, demurrers to Counts I and III, and the mootness application as to Count II, and resolved that many claims failed as pleaded or were moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of taxpayer petitioners (Brouillette, Lewis) | Taxpayers have standing under Biester/Consumer Party exceptions because their claims would otherwise go unchallenged and no one better situated will sue | Defendants argued taxpayers lack the requisite substantial, direct, immediate interest | Court: Overruled objections; Brouillette and Lewis have taxpayer standing under established exceptions |
| Legislative standing of Rep. Christiana | Christiana claimed usurpation of his voting authority by executive/treasury actions regarding debt | Defendants argued Christiana has only a generalized grievance, not a concrete legislative injury | Court: Sustained objection; Christiana lacks legislative standing and is dismissed from Count III |
| Count II (Article VIII §13 — alleged unbalanced budgets for FY2016-17 and FY2017-18) | Petitioners argued appropriations exceeded actual/estimated revenues and fiscal-year deficits persisted into next year | Defendants argued intervening legislation and subsequent budgets eliminated any present controversy, mooting the claims | Court: Granted Senate respondents’ mootness application; Count II dismissed as moot (petitioners also failed to expedite and did not meet narrow repetition-evading-review exception) |
| Count III (Article VIII §7 — alleged unconstitutional long-term debt incurred by Treasurer/Governor/Auditor) | Petitioners alleged lines of credit and intra-year borrowing produced long-term debt in violation of constitutional debt limits | Defendants argued the lines/redistributions were intra-Commonwealth transfers, not constitutionally cognizable "debt" to external creditors | Court: Sustained demurrer; petition fails to allege constitutionally cognizable debt (i.e., borrowed money/obligations to outside parties), claim dismissed |
| Counts I & related (Article IV veto duties; Section 618 revenue-estimate/item-veto) | Petitioners argued Governor had duty to veto (whole or item) to prevent enactment of an unbalanced appropriations bill | Defendants argued the bill became law by inaction per Art. IV §15 (pocket/ten-day rule); no constitutional duty to act in any particular way; Section 618 not implicated because Governor did not sign final revenue estimate or the bill | Court: Sustained demurrers; no judicially cognizable claim that Governor violated veto duties as pled; Section 618 claim not implicated |
| Joinder / sovereign immunity (Commonwealth named generally) | Petitioners named Commonwealth generally as respondent | Defendants argued Commonwealth is immune unless specific waiver and petitioners failed to name an identified Commonwealth agency | Court: Sustained preliminary objection; Commonwealth (general) dismissed from Counts II & III |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962) (standing doctrine requires concrete adverseness)
- Application of Biester v. Thornburgh, 409 A.2d 848 (Pa. 1979) (taxpayer standing parameters and narrow exception explained)
- Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 507 A.2d 323 (Pa. 1986) (five-factor test for taxpayer standing under Biester exception)
- Markham v. Wolf, 136 A.3d 134 (Pa. 2016) (limits on legislative standing; injury must impair legislator’s voting/official powers)
- Jubelirer v. Rendell, 953 A.2d 514 (Pa. 2008) (separation of powers and differences between Governor’s budget submission and legislature’s appropriation power)
- Johnson v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, 309 A.2d 528 (Pa. 1973) (interpretation of constitutional limits on state debt and when agency obligations are not Commonwealth debt)