Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Coal Region Canary
Coal Region CanaryCoal Region Canary

Coronavirus in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Governor on HR836

pennsylvania supreme court hr836

pennsylvania supreme court hr836

Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court ruled late Wednesday to uphold Governor Tom Wolf’s Disaster Emergency Declaration despite a legislative attempt to end it.

When a concurrent resolution, HR836, passed the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, the General Assembly members who supported it declared the state’s pandemic response, for the most part, over.

They believed they had the ability to end the Governor’s Disaster declaration and bring an end to the phased response to the coronavirus outbreak. Wolf believed the General Assembly had to bring him that resolution, thus giving him the ability to veto it.

However, the General Assembly pointed to a clause in Pennsylvania’s disaster emergency laws that didn’t specifically call for what’s known as the “presentment clause” where they’d have to hand it over to the Governor.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

The majority of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices said Wednesday that’s not the case.

Supreme Court Split, But Rules in Favor of Governor Tom Wolf on HR836

So, the Pennsylvania pandemic response continues with Wolf’s controversial unilateral decision-making leading the way. Just hours before the Supreme Court decision was published, he and Health Secretary Rachel Levine ordered that face masks are required for all Pennsylvanians when in public, enhancing a previous order that they struggled for months to give a straight answer about to the media and present clearly on social media.

The Supreme Court ruling broke as follows, by justice:

  • Majority opinion (4): Wecht, Baer, Todd, Donohue
  • Concurring, Dissenting opinion (1): Dougherty
  • Dissenting opinion (2): Saylor, Mundy

Wecht wrote in his majority opinion:

“The Senators may be frustrated that, the General Assembly previously having¬†delegated power to the Governor, the rescission of that power requires presentment,¬†perhaps necessitating a two-thirds majority to override a veto. But the potential for such¬†frustration inheres whenever the legislative branch delegates power to the executive¬†branch in any context. The General Assembly itself decided to delegate power to the¬†Governor under Section 7301(c). Current members of the General Assembly may regret¬†that decision, but they cannot use an unconstitutional means to give that regret legal¬†effect. The General Assembly must adhere to the constitutional requirement of¬†presentment even when attempting to overturn the Governor‚Äôs delegated putative¬†authority to suspend laws.”

In the concurring, dissenting opinion, Justice Dougherty wrote:

In summary and to reiterate, I would hold Section 7301(c) of the Emergency Code¬†violates the Pennsylvania Constitution and the offending portion of the statute may not be¬†severed. For the reasons outlined above, ‚Äúit cannot be presumed the General Assembly¬†would have enacted the remaining valid provisions without the void one[.]‚ÄĚ 1 Pa.C.S.¬†¬ß1925. The presumption of severability having been rebutted, in my view, we are left with¬†no choice but to declare the statute unsalvageable.

And in the court’s dissenting opinion, Justice Saylor writes:

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

In summary, I would respond to the Governor‚Äôs petition and request for relief by¬†holding that Article III, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution does not require¬†presentment of the concurrent resolution in issue here. In closing, I refer to a passage¬†from Justice Powell‚Äôs concurrence in Chadha, in which he stressed that the boundaries¬†between each branch should be fixed ‚Äėaccording to common sense and the inherent¬†necessities of the governmental co-ordination.‚Äô‚ÄĚ Chadha, 462 U.S. at 962, 103 S. Ct. at¬†2790 (quoting J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. U.S., 276 U.S. 394, 406, 48 S. Ct. 348, 351¬†(1928)).¬†I agree, and hence, I respectfully dissent.

Full Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinions on HR836

Here’s the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinions on the issues over HR836:

Majority Opinion

pennsylvania supreme court majority opinion hr836

Concurring/Dissenting Opinion

pennsylvania supreme court concurring dissenting opinion hr836

Dissenting Opinion

pennsylvania supreme court dissenting opinion hr836


Subscribe to Coal Region Canary

Get email updates from Coal Region Canary by becoming a subscriber today. Just enter your email address below to get started!

News Tips?

Let us know of news happening in your area. Use our NEWS TIPS ENTRY FORM


  1. David W. Catherman

    July 1, 2020 at 10:31 pm

    The masks are a pain in the ass and their MICRON Filter Capability offers no benefit for the individual wearing it..,
    If one is as butt ugly as touchy tommy the Worthless wolf then the mask is warranted to cover a mug like that.

    David W. Catherman, MAJ (Retired)

  2. Dave

    July 2, 2020 at 9:38 am

    Just give him the paper to sign and let’s end this nonsense.

  3. PTFloridians

    July 2, 2020 at 10:27 am
    …this is who “knows best” for us what to do about our health and wellness.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

Local News

Several Schuylkill County residents say they recently found bizarre printed messages inside packages of items purchased at local grocery stores. The Canary spoke with...

Local Weather

How much are we really going to get? Some say it's still too soon to tell.

PA News

Flights arriving in the cover of night to NEPA.

Local Weather

Slightly more snow expected for Schuylkill County.

Coronavirus in Pennsylvania

Hamburg Area School District may be joining Tamaqua Area in defying the indoor mask mandate announced by the administration of Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf...

Local News

Back on March 10, a call came in to the Schuylkill County 9-1-1 dispatch center. Crews with Minersville’s Goodwill Fire Co. and EMS needed...