Washington, Aplts. v. Dept. of Pub. Welfare, 188 A.3d 1135

Background

In 2011 House Bill 1261 (H.B. 1261, P.N. 1385) was introduced to amend eligibility/residency rules in the Public Welfare Code; those residency provisions were enacted separately as Act 22, 2011.
Over 13 months later the Senate gutted that shelved H.B. 1261 and inserted different substantive provisions (H.B. 1261, P.N. 3646) concerning adoption/kinship and subsidized custodianship; the Senate later added still more, producing H.B. 1261, P.N. 3884.
The amended bill (P.N. 3884) expanded into a 27‑page Act (later enacted as Act 80 of 2012) adding: county consolidated human services planning, a human services block grant pilot, termination of cash general assistance, new work/penalty rules, and extension of a nursing‑home assessment, among other provisions.
Appellants (individuals and organizations) challenged passage procedure as violating Article III, §§ 1, 3, and 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution; the Commonwealth Court sustained DPW’s demurrer on those Article III claims; appeal followed.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered whether Article III, § 4’s “considered on three different days in each House” requirement was met given the bill’s radical transformation while sitting dormant, and whether Senate insertions were germane to the original bill.
Holding: the Court concluded the Senate transformed an essentially empty shell into a new bill; the final H.B. 1261 (the Act 80 text) was not considered on three different days in each House, so Article III, § 4 was violated and Act 80 was stricken in its entirety.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the legislative process complied with Article III, § 4 (three days' consideration)	Appellants: the final substantive bill was not considered three times in each House because early House votes were on a materially different bill and the Senate inserted new, non‑germane provisions into an empty shell	DPW: amendments were germane to a unifying subject (human services) so earlier considerations of H.B. 1261 count toward § 4	Held: Violation of Article III, § 4 — Senate gutted an inactive bill and inserted new substantive provisions that were not germane to the original; the final bill was not considered on three different days in each House, so Act 80 invalid.
Whether Senate amendments were “germane” to the original bill (affecting §§ 1, 3, and § 4 analysis)	Appellants: the new provisions (block grant, work requirements, nursing assessment, GA termination, kinship/adoption subsidies) are unrelated to the original residency‑eligibility subject and thus not germane	DPW: provisions all relate to DPW human‑services regulation/funding and form a unifying subject, so they are germane	Held: Amendments not germane as a matter of law because the original provisions had been enacted elsewhere (Act 22) and the Senate’s insertions could not logically form a single unifying purpose with deleted original text.
Whether Article III, § 1 (no bill may be altered to change its original purpose) was violated	Appellants: the bill’s original purpose changed substantially through late insertions	DPW: original purpose remained (regulation/funding of human services)	Held: Court did not need to decide § 1 because it struck the Act under § 4; but majority analysis treats lack of germaneness as inconsistent with § 1 principles.
Whether Article III, § 3 (single subject rule) was violated	Appellants: Act 80 is omnibus and contains multiple unrelated subjects (tax/assessment, block grant, welfare policy, kinship/adoption subsidies)	DPW/Commonwealth Court: all provisions relate to human‑services funding/administration and thus satisfy single subject	Held: Majority declines to rest the decision solely on § 3 but finds the unifying subject proffered by DPW too broad; Justice Baer concurs but would base the holding on § 3 as well.

Key Cases Cited

Stilp v. Commonwealth, 588 Pa. 539, 905 A.2d 918 (Pa. 2006) (germaneness test for amendments and relationship among Article III §1, §3, §4 challenges)
Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 583 Pa. 275, 877 A.2d 383 (Pa. 2005) (standards for altered/amended bills and deceptive titling; germaneness and original purpose analysis)
City of Philadelphia v. Commonwealth, 575 Pa. 542, 838 A.2d 566 (Pa. 2003) (Article III safeguards exist to prevent "stealth" omnibus legislation; single subject/unifying purpose analysis)
Pennsylvania School Boards Ass'n v. Commonwealth Ass'n of School Admins., 569 Pa. 436, 805 A.2d 476 (Pa. 2002) (application of germaneness test in single‑subject challenges)
Commonwealth v. Neiman, 624 Pa. 53, 84 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013) (nexus/common‑purpose requirement for germaneness; limits on overly broad unifying subjects)
Leach v. Commonwealth, 636 Pa. 81, 141 A.3d 426 (Pa. 2016) (rejecting excessively broad unifying subjects; assessing relatedness of statutory provisions)
Scudder v. Smith, 331 Pa. 165, 200 A. 601 (Pa. 1938) (definition of a bill as the draft containing the full text presented to the legislature)