Three times the Mississippi Supreme Court has dealt with the issue of the governor’s line-item veto and each time the state’s highest court has ruled in favor of the Legislature.
A new lawsuit, which was filed in Hinds County Chancery Court on August 5 by House Speaker Philip Gunn and Speaker Pro Tempore Jason White, is likely headed to the state Supreme Court and precedent gives the legislators a likely advantage.
Matt Steffey, a professor at the Mississippi College School of Law, said the previous decisions have favored the legislative branch. He also says that a far-reaching decision is unlikely.
“If the case reaches the Mississippi Supreme Court, I would expect a narrow decision that speaks only to the facts of this case,” Steffey said. “That’s the approach appellate courts take to cases generally and constitutional cases particularly, especially when the issue involves separation of powers — an area that rarely involves sweeping pronouncements.”
The House legislative leaders want the court to rule that Gov. Tate Reeves’ partial veto of two projects in a COVID-19 spending bill was unconstitutional.
The three cases that have been decided by the state’s highest court that deal with the line item veto start in 1898, only eight years after the state’s constitution became law, and another case didn’t appear before the court until 1993, with the final one decided in 2004.
In the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, it says that the governor may veto parts of appropriation bill, and approve parts of the same, and the portions shall be law.
The deciding factor for the court will be whether Reeves’ veto was one of overruling the Legislature’s intent or whether he was simply vetoing spending of taxpayer funds in an appropriation bill, which is allowed.
In State v. Holder Mississippi in 1898, the court ruled that while omnibus appropriation bills (which have several unrelated appropriations in one bill) are prohibited by the constitution and the governor has the power to veto appropriations in such a bill, he or she can’t excise individual appropriations out of a bill that is dedicated to one purpose.
The first recent decision dealing with the line-item veto came down in 1995, when lawmakers sued the late Gov. Kirk Fordice in 1993 over his veto of parts of 27 budget bills and two of the bond bills.
In Fordice v. Bryan, the state Supreme Court ruled against the governor, saying that he sought to veto legislative intent rather than a distinct appropriation and tried to act as an appropriator by inserting his own figures in a bond bill concerning capital projects at the state’s universities.
In 2004, the state Supreme Court ruled in Barbour v. Delta Correctional Facility Authority that then-Gov. Ronnie Musgrove was barred from not only thwarting the Legislature’s intent by vetoing a provision that created a privately-run correctional facility in the Delta, his veto also can’t create new legislation. Musgrove struck a $54 million cap on funding for private prisons in fiscal 2003.
The court said in its 2004 decision that the legislative branch controls the purse strings.
“The right of the Legislature to control the public treasury, to determine the sources from which the public revenues shall be derived and the objects upon which they shall be expended, to dictate the time, the manner, and the means both of their collection and disbursement, is firmly and inexpugnably established in our political system.”
House Bill 1782 appropriated more than $222 million in CARES Act funds for the state Department of Health. Some of that was reserved for hospitals to compensate them for costs dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic and state Rep. Trey Lamar, R-Senatobia, secured $2 million in funding from the bill for a now-closed North Oak Regional Medical Center in his district.
Reeves said in his veto message that the hospital hasn’t seen any COVID-19 patients since it’s been closed for two years and didn’t need to receive COVID-19 related funds, which are subject to federal clawback provisions.
He also vetoed $6 million for the MAGnet Community Health Disparity Program from HB 1782, which was intended to “address the disproportionate impact on the minority community of coronavirus infections and deaths from COVID-19,” saying in his veto message that he was unfamiliar with the program.
More: Governor vetoes several bills
The lawsuit mentions HB 1700, which was the education appropriations bill partially vetoed by Reeves. The Legislature overrode his veto by big majorities in both chambers on August 10 in an all-day session.
More: Legislature overrides Reeves’ veto on education spending bill
