Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton, 903 N.W.2d 609

Background

After the 2017 regular session adjourned, the Governor called a special session; the Legislature passed appropriation bills, including Senate File No. 1 (legislative appropriations) and House File No. 1 (tax bill).
On May 30, 2017, the Governor signed most bills but exercised line-item vetoes removing the House and Senate biennial appropriations in SF 1; he explained the vetoes were to pressure legislative leaders to renegotiate provisions in recently enacted bills.
The Legislature sued in Ramsey County, seeking a declaratory judgment that the vetoes violated the Separation-of-Powers clause (Minn. Const. art. III) and sought orders compelling funding allotment; the district court held the vetoes violated Article III and declared them void.
The Minnesota Supreme Court granted accelerated review; parties stipulated interim funding arrangements while appeal proceeded and provided information about carryover and LCC funds.
The Supreme Court (majority) held the Governor’s line-item vetoes complied with Article IV, § 23 (line-item veto power), concluded the vetoes did not abolish the Legislature because sufficient carryover/other funds were available, and declined to decide whether the vetoes were unconstitutionally coercive, reversing in part and vacating the coercion-related ruling.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Governor may line-item veto appropriations to the Legislature under Art. IV, § 23	Legislature: line-item veto cannot be used to defeat funding for a co-equal branch or otherwise is limited	Governor: Article IV, § 23 textually grants line-item veto power over items of appropriation, with no exclusion for legislative appropriations	Held: Vetoes valid under Art. IV, § 23 (veto targeted identifiable appropriation items)
Whether the vetoes violated Art. III by effectively abolishing the Legislature	Legislature: Removing appropriations for House and Senate deprived branch of capacity to function until next session, thus abolishing it	Governor: Judiciary cannot appropriate funds; moreover Legislature has access to carryover and LCC funds to continue operations	Held: No Article III abolition—Legislature has sufficient carryover/LCC funds to operate until reconvening
Whether the Judiciary may order funding for the Legislature in absence of appropriation	Legislature: sought mandamus/injunctive relief to compel allotment	Governor: judicial funding is unavailable; Article XI prohibits payment absent appropriation	Held: Judiciary lacks constitutional power to order funding absent appropriation (Article XI)
Whether the vetoes were unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Art. III	Legislature: Governor used veto as a coercive threat to obtain policy concessions—violates separation-of-powers	Governor: Line-item veto is constitutional and motive-based inquiry is not appropriate; this is political bargaining within constitutional tools	Held: Court declined to decide coercion claim on grounds of judicial restraint; vacated district court’s coercion holding and remanded for dismissal

Key Cases Cited

Inter Faculty Org. v. Carlson, 478 N.W.2d 192 (Minn. 1991) (line-item veto construed narrowly as a negative power over identifiable appropriations)
Johnson v. Carlson, 507 N.W.2d 232 (Minn. 1993) (focus on whether veto is of an "item of appropriation"; courts do not probe motives)
State ex rel. Gardner v. Holm, 62 N.W.2d 52 (Minn. 1954) (plain meaning of Governor's veto power over appropriation bills)
Brayton v. Pawlenty, 781 N.W.2d 357 (Minn. 2010) (Executive and Legislature must cooperate in budget process; executive budget powers limited to approval and veto)
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (U.S. 1803) (judiciary's duty to interpret law; basis for judicial review)
State v. Hoppe, 215 N.W.2d 797 (Minn. 1974) (Legislature remains in existence between sessions)