page_title: Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton
section_title: Ruling of the Supreme Court
hierarchical_section_title: Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton / Ruling of the Supreme Court
caption_attribution_description: English: Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea in Rochester, Minnesota
context_page_description: The Ninetieth Minnesota State Senate v. Dayton, was a 2017 Minnesota Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that Governor Mark Dayton's line item vetoes of appropriations for the Minnesota Senate and Minnesota House of Representatives were a lawful exercise of his authority granted by the Minnesota Constitution. The Court also ruled that since the state legislature had access to other funding to continue operating as a fully functioning and independent branch of government, the governor's vetoes did not effectively abolish the legislature and thereby violate Article III of the state constitution. The Court also ruled that the judicial branch did not have the constitutional authority to order funding without a corresponding budgetary appropriation. The Supreme Court's ruling overturned an earlier ruling by a Ramsey County District Court judge. The case marked the first time in which the Minnesota Supreme Court was asked to resolve a lawsuit brought by one branch of government against another.
context_section_description: On September 9, the Minnesota Supreme Court made a preliminary ruling that when Dayton vetoed appropriations for the legislature, he did not violate his constitutional authority to make line item vetoes for budgetary appropriations. The Court also ordered the parties into talks with a mediator. It also strongly encouraged the parties to find a political solution to resolve this dispute. The Court did not remand the case back to the lower Ramsey County court, thereby giving it the ability to make a further ruling if the attempts at mediation were unsuccessful.
  Both parties met with mediator Rick Solum over the course of two days (September 21 and 22), but he determined that the legislative leaders and Dayton had irreconcilable differences and that their impasse could not be overcome without a further ruling by the Court. Following the impasse, Dayton claimed that legislative leaders had "lied to" Minnesotans and the Supreme Court about the legislature's ability to finance its operations until the start of the upcoming legislative session to begin in February 2018. One week later, the Supreme Court ordered legislative leaders to submit a full report of their current financial situation regarding funding on hand and their ability to continue to function.
  On November 16, the Court issued its final ruling and upheld Dayton's vetoes. The Court also stated that the Legislature had access to sufficient funding to continue to exist until the beginning of the next legislative session; consequently, Dayton's actions remained within his constitutional authority. The Court's ruling was issued by a 5–1 majority; Justice Barry Anderson dissented, and Justice David Stras recused himself from the case. Additionally, in the Court's ruling, Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea stated that the judicial branch had no authority to appropriate funding without a legislative counterpart. The Court declined to take a stance on the matter of whether Dayton's veto of the legislative funding was coercive; the Court determined that the legislature would be able to continue to operate until the next legislative session. 
  In the majority ruling for the Court, Chief Justice Gildea acknowledged the unprecedented nature of the case saying, "For the first time in Minnesota history, we are asked to resolve a lawsuit brought by one of our coordinate branches of government—the Legislative Branch—against our other coordinate branch of government—the Executive Branch." Since the governor's line item veto power was established in 1876, the case was only the sixth instance of litigation involving the power in Minnesota history and only the third instance in which such litigation reached the Minnesota Supreme Court.
caption: In a majority opinion, Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea stated that Dayton's actions were within his constitutional authority as governor.
exif: {"Image Make": "Canon", "Image Model": "Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT", "Image Orientation": "0", "Image XResolution": "72", "Image ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Inch", "Image YResolution": "72", "Image Software": "Picasa 3.0", "Image DateTime": "2010:10:07 14:32:59", "Image YCbCrPositioning": "Co-sited", "Image ExifOffset": "216", "Thumbnail Compression": "JPEG (old-style)", "Thumbnail XResolution": "72", "Thumbnail YResolution": "72", "Thumbnail ResolutionUnit": "Pixels/Inch", "Thumbnail JPEGInterchangeFormat": "9436", "Thumbnail JPEGInterchangeFormatLength": "3857", "EXIF ExposureTime": "1/60", "EXIF FNumber": "28/5", "EXIF ExposureProgram": "Program Normal", "EXIF ISOSpeedRatings": "400", "EXIF ExifVersion": "0221", "EXIF DateTimeOriginal": "2010:10:07 14:32:59", "EXIF DateTimeDigitized": "2010:10:07 14:32:59", "EXIF ComponentsConfiguration": "YCbCr", "EXIF ShutterSpeedValue": "193557/32768", "EXIF ApertureValue": "162885/32768", "EXIF ExposureBiasValue": "0", "EXIF MeteringMode": "Pattern", "EXIF Flash": "Flash fired, auto mode, red-eye reduction mode", "EXIF FocalLength": "85", "EXIF FlashPixVersion": "0100", "EXIF ColorSpace": "Uncalibrated", "EXIF ExifImageWidth": "2145", "EXIF ExifImageLength": "3228", "Interoperability InteroperabilityIndex": "R98", "Interoperability InteroperabilityVersion": "[48, 49, 48, 48]", "EXIF InteroperabilityOffset": "9312", "EXIF FocalPlaneXResolution": "1728000/437", "EXIF FocalPlaneYResolution": "384000/97", "EXIF FocalPlaneResolutionUnit": "2", "EXIF CustomRendered": "Normal", "EXIF ExposureMode": "Auto Exposure", "EXIF WhiteBalance": "Auto", "EXIF SceneCaptureType": "Standard", "EXIF ImageUniqueID": "89435c97ff7fdc44bb0640908f15db17"}