Fletcher v. Commonwealth

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kentucky considered whether the Governor could direct expenditures from the state treasury to fund executive-branch operations when the General Assembly had not enacted an executive department budget. The court addressed mootness, the political-question doctrine, separation of powers, and the constitutional limits on unilateral executive appropriations.

Holdings

1. The appeal was not moot because the challenged issue was capable of repetition yet evading review.
2. The dispute over whether the Governor's spending plan exceeded constitutional authority was justiciable and was not a nonjusticiable political question.
3. Absent a specific appropriation, statutory mandate, constitutional mandate, or valid federal mandate, section 230 of the Kentucky Constitution prohibits withdrawal of money from the state treasury.
4. Statutes specifically mandating payments or contributions may operate as self-executing appropriations; constitutional mandates must be funded at no more than existing levels; and valid federal mandates required by the Supremacy Clause must be funded notwithstanding section 230.
5. Kentucky law provides no authority for a continuation budget based on the immediately preceding biennial budget.
6. The Governor has no inherent, emergency, or unilateral constitutional authority to appropriate money from the state treasury that the General Assembly has not appropriated.
7. Miller v. Quertermous is overruled to the extent it permits or can be interpreted to permit unilateral executive spending of unappropriated funds during an emergency.
8. The Governor's suspension of statutes through the Public Services Continuation Plan was unconstitutional and invalid from its inception.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appeal was moot after the General Assembly enacted a budget and ratified expenditures made under the Public Services Continuation Plan.
2. Whether the constitutional validity of the Governor's spending plan presented a nonjusticiable political question.
3. Whether the Governor may order money drawn from the state treasury to fund executive-branch operations when the General Assembly has not made an appropriation.
4. Whether statutory, constitutional, or federal mandates may authorize or require expenditures notwithstanding the absence of a specific budget appropriation.
5. Whether Kentucky law recognizes a continuation budget based on the prior biennial budget.
6. Whether the Governor possesses inherent or emergency authority to spend unappropriated funds.
7. Whether the Governor may suspend statutes through an executive spending plan.

Disposition

other