152 A.3d 687
Md.2017Background
- In 2016 the Maryland General Assembly enacted Chapter 35 (H.B. 172), which restructured the Anne Arundel County School Board Nominating Commission by increasing membership from 11 to 13, removing the Governor’s authority to appoint five members, reallocating appointment power to various county entities, and adding procedural rules (residency, chair selection, term limits, staffing, supermajority voting, application requirements). Chapter 35 took effect June 1, 2016 and expressly terminated the terms of the Governor’s five appointees as of that date.
- Four gubernatorial appointees (including the Commission chair) sued, alleging Chapter 35 violated Article II, § 15 (Governor’s removal power) and Article 8 (separation of powers) of the Maryland Constitution; they sought injunctive and declaratory relief. The circuit court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of the termination and the altered appointment process.
- The State and Governor appealed; the Court of Appeals granted certiorari. The primary legal question was whether the General Assembly’s restructuring and the attendant early termination of gubernatorial appointees violated the Constitution.
- The Court analyzed Schisler v. State and related precedent about when the legislature may abolish, reconstitute, or otherwise change statutory bodies and whether terminating incumbents is an impermissible usurpation of executive removal power under Article II, § 15.
- The Court concluded Chapter 35 constituted a legitimate restructuring/reconstitution of the Nominating Commission and prospectively changed the appointment mode; terminating the Governor’s appointees as part of that restructuring was permissible and did not violate Article II, § 15 or Article 8. The Court reversed the preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chapter 35 unlawfully removed gubernatorial appointees in violation of Article II, § 15 | Appointees: terminating only the Governor’s appointees usurps the Governor’s exclusive constitutional removal power for civil officers. | State: Legislature may restructure statutory bodies and prospectively change appointment modes; ending existing terms incidental to reconstitution is permissible. | Held: Termination was incidental to a lawful restructuring/reconstitution; no Article II, § 15 violation. |
| Whether Chapter 35 violated separation of powers (Article 8) by usurping executive authority | Appointees: targeted termination and altered replacement method amounts to legislative usurpation of executive functions. | State: Changes are legislative regulation of a statutorily created body, not an unlawful assumption of executive power. | Held: No separation of powers violation; restructuring falls within legislative authority. |
| Whether the General Assembly may prospectively change appointment mode for a statutorily created body | Appointees: once Governor-appointed, successors and removal during term are governed by Article II, § 15 and cannot be circumvented by statute. | State: For offices created by statute, the General Assembly can designate the mode of appointment and change it prospectively. | Held: Legislature may prescribe a different mode of appointment for a statutory body; Chapter 35 validly changed appointment method prospectively. |
| Whether members of the Nominating Commission must be treated as "civil officers" for § 15 analysis | Appointees: Commission members are civil officers whose removal during term is exclusively gubernatorial. | State: Even assuming § 15 applies, Schisler allows termination when part of legitimate reconstitution; membership status need not be resolved. | Held: Court did not decide whether members are civil officers because it resolved the case on the restructuring rationale; disposition would be the same either way. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schisler v. State, 394 Md. 519 (Md. 2006) (plurality: legislature may not terminate incumbents in a manner that usurps Governor’s removal power when the act is not a genuine reconstitution; also recognized legislature can abolish or reconstitute statutory bodies in proper circumstances)
- State v. Callahan, 441 Md. 220 (Md. 2015) (Article 8 prohibits one branch from assuming duties of another; separation of powers analysis explained)
- Merchant v. State, 448 Md. 75 (Md. 2016) (separation of powers does not demand absolute separation; allows sensible elasticity)
- Comm’n on Med. Discipline v. Stillman, 291 Md. 390 (Md. 1981) (when an office is of legislative creation, the General Assembly can change mode of appointment and otherwise modify or abolish the office)