Wolf., T. v. Scarnati, J., 233 A.3d 679

Background

On March 6, 2020 Governor Wolf issued a Proclamation of Disaster Emergency under 35 Pa.C.S. § 7301(c) in response to COVID-19; he renewed it on June 3, 2020.
The Proclamation activated executive powers with the force of law (fund transfers, regulatory suspensions, National Guard mobilization) and supported later executive orders (e.g., business closures upheld in Friends of Danny DeVito).
On June 9, 2020 both legislative chambers adopted H.R. 836, a concurrent resolution declaring the disaster emergency terminated and directing the Governor to issue an order ending it; the Secretary of the Senate notified the Governor on June 10.
The Senate leaders sought enforcement of H.R. 836 in Commonwealth Court; the Governor invoked this Court’s King’s Bench jurisdiction to declare H.R. 836 void for failing to comply with constitutional presentment requirements.
The Supreme Court addressed only whether the Pennsylvania Constitution and § 7301(c) permit the General Assembly to terminate a governor’s disaster proclamation by concurrent resolution without presenting it to the Governor.
Holding: the Court ruled that Article III, § 9’s presentment clause applies; § 7301(c) must be read to require presentment; H.R. 836 was not presented and is therefore a legal nullity. The Court also rejected the Legislature’s arguments under Article I, § 12 and non-delegation concerns.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Governor)	Defendant's Argument (Senators)	Held
Whether a concurrent resolution ending a gubernatorial disaster proclamation is subject to the Constitution’s presentment requirement (Art. III, §9).	Presentment applies to concurrent resolutions that have legislative effect; H.R. 836 was not presented and so is invalid.	§7301(c) and practice allow the General Assembly to terminate the emergency by concurrent resolution without presentment.	Presentment applies; concurrent resolutions with legislative effect must be presented. H.R. 836 is a nullity.
Whether 35 Pa.C.S. §7301(c) itself removes presentment for termination resolutions.	§7301(c) should be read to require presentment (Governor); the statute’s reference to the Governor acting afterward implies presentment.	Statutory text (“at any time,” “thereupon,” “shall issue”) shows the General Assembly intended unilateral termination without presentment.	Applying constitutional avoidance, §7301(c) is reasonably read to require presentment; that reading avoids constitutional infirmity.
Whether Article I, §12 (power to suspend laws) gives the General Assembly unilateral authority to suspend or to terminate suspensions without presentment.	Article I, §12 is a negative check on executive suspension power, not an affirmative grant allowing unilateral legislative suspension without presentment.	The suspension clause empowers the Legislature to suspend laws and thus permits unilateral legislative termination without presentment.	Art. I, §12 does not authorize unilateral legislative suspension/termination that bypasses presentment; suspension is a legislative act subject to presentment.
Whether the Emergency Services Code is an unconstitutional delegation (non-delegation) permitting the Governor to act as legislature and enabling the Legislature to revoke without presentment.	The Code supplies adequate standards and basic policy choices; delegation is permissible; rescission of delegated authority must follow constitutional presentment.	If proclamation suspends laws delegated by the Legislature, the Legislature retained authority to rescind by concurrent resolution (no presentment needed).	Non-delegation challenge fails; even if delegation occurred, the Legislature cannot use unconstitutional means (unpresented concurrent resolution) to revoke it.

Key Cases Cited

Friends of Danny DeVito v. Wolf, 227 A.3d 872 (Pa. 2020) (upholding Governor’s emergency orders and recognizing proclamations have the force of law)
Commonwealth v. Sessoms, 532 A.2d 775 (Pa. 1987) (adopting Chadha reasoning; legislative vetoes violate presentment/separation of powers)
Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (federal separation-of-powers decision invalidating legislative veto; framing presentment’s purpose)
West Shore Sch. Dist. v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 626 A.2d 1131 (Pa. 1993) (concurrent resolution that reestablished an agency had effect of law and required presentment)
Russ v. Commonwealth, 60 A. 169 (Pa. 1905) (distinguishing internal/procedural resolutions from those that act on behalf of the State and require presentment)
Scudder v. Smith, 200 A. 601 (Pa. 1938) (joint resolution creating commission and appropriating funds required presentment)
Protz v. (Commonwealth), 161 A.3d 827 (Pa. 2017) (describing non-delegation limits: basic policy choices and adequate standards)