Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided November 16, 2017No. A17-1142Published

1DissentAnderson, Justice

DISSENT

I agree, that, in the absence of an appropriation, a judicial order that authorizes funding for the Legislative Branch is unconstitutional, I also agree that the plain language of Article IV, Section 23 of the Minnesota Constitution gives a governor textual authority to lineritem veto appropriations for the Legislature. But I conclude that this is. not the occasion for judicial. restraint and that the Governor’s line-item vetoes of the appropriations passed by the Legislature to fund the House and Senate violate Article III of the Minnesota Constitution. I .would hold, therefore, that…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Baker v. CarrSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Marbury v. MadisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1803
  3. Hamdi v. RumsfeldSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. SawyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  5. National Federation of Independent Business v. SebeliusSupreme Court of the United States · 2012

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API