Opinion ID: 2424301
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Delegated Powers and Sovereign Immunity

Text: The MdTA alleges further that, in forming the Agreement, the Secretary of the Authority ... exceeded ... legislatively granted powers, and[,] therefore[,] the ... resulting contract is [(1)] unenforceable as ultra vires and [(2)] barred by sovereign immunity. Although the Legislature invested in the MdTA extraordinary power to set and collect public tolls, the MdTA posits, the General Assembly expressed no intent to permit [the MdTA] to... use those same funds to influence ... lawmaking.... The MdTA continues that [t]here is every reason to infer that the [L]egislature had no such intent, as [t]he risk of conflict and abuse is self-evident when, as here, a public entity seeks (directly or indirectly) to lobby the very elected [L]egislature responsible for establishing its existence and powers. Consequently, in entering the Agreement, the MdTA exceeded its power, i.e., acted outside the scope of its authority, thereby rendering the contract ultra vires, as well as barred by sovereign immunity. See S.G., § 12-201(a) ([T]he State, its officers, and its units may not raise the defense of sovereign immunity in a contract action, in a court of the State, based on a written contract that an official or employee executed for the State or [one] of its units while the official or employee was acting within the scope of [ his/her ] authority .... (emphasis added)). In riposte, the FOP asserts that the MdTA possesses a unique and vast amount of autonomy with respect to use of its funds. As such, the MdTA enjoyed necessarily the authority to enter into this contract. Moreover, in drafting this agreement, the MdTA was not hiring private lobbyists, but rather promoting the recruit[ment] and retain[ment of] qualified police officers, a strong and presumably proper interest to the MdTA.... As further indication that the MdTA was not hiring private lobbyists, the FOP reiterates that no money [was] paid to the FOP or its members; rather the benefit was to the MdTA Police Force as a whole. The Court of Special Appeals agreed with the FOP that the THV program was not an elaborate means of compensating the [FOP] for advocating the agency's position to the Legislature. Md Transp. Auth., 195 Md.App. at 184-85, 5 A.3d at 1209 (footnote omitted). Therefore, the intermediate appellate court concluded the Agreement ... is [not] an ultra vires hiring of lobbyists, beyond the scope of the agency's enumerated powers. Md. Transp. Auth., 195 Md.App. at 185, 5 A.3d at 1209. In emphasizing the word agency's, the intermediate appellate panel seemed to suggest that the FOP was advocating its own position by seeking withdrawal of the collective bargaining bills. But see Brief of Respondents at 5 (For approximately three years, the FOP had been seeking collective bargaining by attempting to introduce legislation providing for collective bargaining.). With respect to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Court of Special Appeals determined that the State has waived [such] ... immunity under limited circumstances in regard to claims based on written contracts, as in the present case. Md. Transp. Auth., 195 Md.App. at 156, 5 A.3d at 1193 (citing Magnetti v. Univ. of Md., 402 Md. 548, 560-62, 562 n. 6 937 A.2d 219, 226, 227 n. 6 (2007)). Having decided that the MdTA was not hiring lobbyists via the Agreement, the intermediate appellate court did not consider further the MdTA's contention that the doctrine applies nevertheless to ultra vires written contracts. See id.