Court Opinion

ID: 9398417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-31 13:05:09.23126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:33.205259
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court
 Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the
 opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any
 prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and
 official text of the opinion.

In the Supreme Court of Georgia

                                                  Decided: May 31, 2023

             S23A0167. KNOX et al. v. STATE OF GEORGIA.

       ELLINGTON, Justice.

       Five University System of Georgia (“USG”) professors 1 filed

suit to block a 2017 statutory amendment that removed public

colleges and other public postsecondary educational institutions

from the statutory definition of “school safety zone.” Before the 2017

amendment, carrying or possessing a weapon on any real property

or in any building owned by or leased to any postsecondary

educational institution was a misdemeanor, and the 2017

amendment decriminalized that conduct. The professors alleged

that, as a result of the 2017 amendment, the Code requires the

       1 The plaintiffs below are John Knox, Michael G. Noll, James Porter,
Laurel Robinson, and William B. Whitman. A sixth professor, Aristotelis
Santas, joined as a plaintiff in the professors’ first complaint, but he did not
join in the plaintiffs’ amended complaint.
Board of Regents, the USG, and USG institutions to permit persons

to carry or possess weapons on the campuses of public postsecondary

educational institutions, contrary to longstanding USG policies. The

professors sought a declaration that the statutory amendment is

unconstitutional as applied because it usurps the Board’s

constitutional authority to govern, control, and manage the USG

and its member institutions.

     The trial court granted the State of Georgia’s motion to dismiss

the complaint and denied the professors’ request for declaratory

relief, ruling that the trial court lacked jurisdiction on three

alternative grounds, including mootness. Because the complaint

shows that the Board adopted gun-carrying policies consistent with

the 2017 statutory amendment, the question of whether the

amendment usurped the constitutional authority of the Board to

govern, control, and manage the USG and its member institutions

became moot. Consequently, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to

adjudicate the professors’ as-applied challenge, and we affirm the

judgment dismissing the professors’ complaint on that basis alone.

                                 2
      Georgia’s constitution provides for judicial review of statutes.

See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, § II, Par. V (a) (Legislative acts in

violation of the constitution “are void, and the judiciary shall so

declare them.”). An action against the State of Georgia in the

superior court for a declaratory judgment is the appropriate

litigation mechanism for such review, and enforcement of

unconstitutional statutes may be enjoined. See Ga. Const. of 1983,

Art. I, § II, Par. V (b)2; OCGA §§ 9-4-2; 9-4-3. A declaratory judgment

may be entered, however, only in the case of an “actual controversy,”

OCGA § 9-4-2 (a), where the plaintiff needs “relief from uncertainty

and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal

relations.” OCGA § 9-4-1. See Gwinnett County v. Blaney, 275 Ga.

696, 703 (1) (572 SE2d 553) (2002).

      “[T]he proper scope of declaratory judgment is to adjudge those

      2 We note that the professors name the State of Georgia as the only
defendant, and they claim that the State has waived sovereign immunity as to
their constitutional challenge, based on an amendment to the judicial review
paragraph, adding Art. I, § II, Par. V (b), that the people of Georgia ratified in
2020. Because we affirm the trial court’s dismissal on jurisdictional grounds,
we do not reach the parties’ arguments about whether Art. I, § II, Par. V (b)
applies to the professors’ claims. Likewise, we do not reach the issue of
standing.
                                        3
rights among parties upon which their future conduct depends.”

Sexual Offender Registration Review Bd. v. Berzett, 301 Ga. 391, 393

(801 SE2d 821) (2017) (citation and punctuation omitted). There can

be no actual or justiciable controversy if the questions in the case

have become moot. See id. “A petition for declaratory judgment is

moot when the relief, if granted, would have no practical effect on

the underlying controversy.” Id. In particular, a court “has no

province to determine whether or not a statute, in the abstract, is

valid[.]” Fourth St. Baptist Church of Columbus v. Bd. of Registrars,

253 Ga. 368, 369 (1) (320 SE2d 543) (1984). See also Berzett, 301 Ga.

at 396 (“[I]t is a settled principle of Georgia law that the jurisdiction

of the courts is confined to justiciable controversies, and we will not

decide the constitutionality of a law where no justiciable case or

controversy is presented.” (citation and punctuation omitted)).

When a petition for declaratory judgment is moot, the trial court is

required to dismiss the action. See id. at 395-396; see also Baker v.

City of Marietta, 271 Ga. 210, 214 (1) (518 SE2d 879) (1999) (“Where

the party seeking declaratory judgment does not show it is in a

                                   4
position of uncertainty as to an alleged right, dismissal of the

declaratory judgment action is proper[.]”).

      In this case, taking the allegations in the professors’ amended

complaint as true,3 the complaint shows that there is no actual,

justiciable controversy to authorize declaratory relief. The complaint

alleges the following. The Georgia constitution endows the Board

with plenary authority over the USG and its member institutions. 4

      3 See Sons of Confederate Veterans v. Henry County Bd. of Commrs., 315
Ga. 39, 63 (2) (c) (880 SE2d 168) (2022) (“At the motion to dismiss stage, we
accept as true all well-pled material allegations in the complaint.”); Ewing v.
City of Atlanta, 281 Ga. 652, 653 (2) (642 SE2d 100) (2007) (“In reviewing the
grant of a motion to dismiss, an appellate court must construe the pleadings in
the light most favorable to the appellant with all doubts resolved in the
appellant’s favor. A motion to dismiss should only be granted if the allegations
of the complaint, construed most favorably to the plaintiff, disclose with
certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of
provable facts.” (citation and punctuation omitted)).
      4 See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VIII, § IV, Par. I (b) (“The government,

control, and management of the University System of Georgia and all of the
institutions in said system shall be vested in the Board of Regents of the
University System of Georgia.”) (amendment ratified in 1943); OCGA §§ 20-3-
21 (establishing how the Board shall be constituted); 20-3-31 (establishing
general powers of the Board); 20-3-51 (“The government, control, and
management of the university system and all of its institutions shall be vested
in the board of regents.”); Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Georgia v. Doe, 278
Ga. App. 878, 885 (2) (a) (630 SE2d 85) (2006) (“In managing its member
institutions, the Board’s powers are plenary, untrammeled except by such
restraints of law as are directly expressed, or necessarily implied. Under the
powers granted, it becomes necessary to look for limitations, rather than for
authority to do specific acts. Limited only by their proper discretion and by the

                                        5
To promote its educational mission and to ensure a safe learning,

working, and research environment, the Board has prohibited guns

within the USG since at least as far back as 1810. The Georgia Code

previously mirrored the USG’s no-guns policy, specifically, by

providing in OCGA § 16-11-127.1 that university campuses were

“school safety zones” where carrying or possessing a weapon,

including a firearm, triggered criminal penalties. 5 More recently, the

General Assembly declared “that the regulation of firearms and

other weapons is properly an issue of general, state-wide concern”

and prohibited counties and cities from regulating in any manner

the possession or carrying of firearms. OCGA § 16-11-173 (a), (b) (1)

Constitution and law of this State, they may exercise any power usually
granted to such corporations.” (citation and punctuation omitted)).
       5 See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, § I, Par. VIII (“The right of the people to

keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall
have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.”); Ga. L.
1994, p. 1015, § 4 (adding public or private technical schools, vocational
schools, colleges, universities, and other institutions of postsecondary
education to the definition of “school safety zone,” where, unless otherwise
provided, it was a felony to carry any weapon while within a school safety zone
or at a school building, school function, or school property or on transportation
furnished by the school); see also Ga. L. 2010, p. 963, § 1-4 (reducing the
criminal penalty for weapons carry license holders).

                                         6
(2005).6 In 2014, the General Assembly greatly expanded the areas

where licensed gun owners could take their weapons. 7 The General

Assembly also added state authorities, including any “board,” to

those entities expressly prohibited from regulating the possession or

carrying of firearms or other weapons. 8 At that time, carrying

weapons was still restricted on college campuses under the statutes

regulating “school safety zones.”9

      The complaint also shows that, after years of opposition by the

Board and USG institution leaders to proposed “campus carry”

legislation, the General Assembly in 2017 amended the definition of

“school safety zone” to remove the criminal penalties for carrying

weapons on college campuses, with several exceptions. See Ga. L.

      6 See Ga. L. 2005, p. 613, § 1.
      7 See OCGA § 16-11-127 (c) (2014) (Generally, license holders “shall be
authorized to carry a weapon . . . in every location in this state,” except as
limited by statute or on private property per the property owner’s policy.); Ga.
L. 2014, p. 599, § 1-5.
      8 See OCGA § 16-11-173 (b) (1) (2014); Ga. L. 2014, p. 599, § 1-11.
      9 See OCGA §§ 16-11-127.1 (a) (3) (B) (2014) (defining property owned or

leased by “[a]ny public or private technical school, vocational school, college,
university, or other institution of postsecondary education” as a school safety
zone); 16-11-127.1 (b) (1) (2014) (making it unlawful to carry weapons in school
safety zones).

                                       7
2017, p. 341, § 1 (HB 280).10 In the absence of the statutory provision

     10In pertinent part, OCGA § 16-11-127.1 (c) (2017) as amended provided:
           The provisions of this Code section [making it unlawful for
     any person to carry or possess any weapon while within a school
     safety zone, at a school function, or on a bus or other transportation
     furnished by a school] shall not apply to: . . .
                  (20) (A) Any weapons carry license holder when
           he or she is in any building or on real property owned
           by or leased to any public technical school, vocational
           school, college, or university, or other public
           institution of postsecondary education; provided,
           however, that such exception shall:
                         (i) Not apply to buildings or property
                  used for athletic sporting events or
                  student housing, including, but not
                  limited to, fraternity and sorority houses;
                         (ii) Not apply to any preschool or
                  childcare space located within such
                  buildings or real property;
                         (iii) Not apply to any room or space
                  being used for classes related to a college
                  and career academy or other specialized
                  school as provided for under Code Section
                  20-4-37;
                         (iv) Not apply to any room or space
                  being used for classes in which high school
                  students are enrolled through a dual
                  enrollment program, including, but not
                  limited to, classes related to the “Move on
                  When Ready Act” as provided for under
                  Code Section 20-2-161.3;
                         (v) Not apply to faculty, staff, or
                  administrative offices or rooms where
                  disciplinary proceedings are conducted;
                         (vi) Only apply to the carrying of
                  handguns which a licensee is licensed to
                  carry pursuant to subsection (e) of Code

                                    8
      Section 16-11-126 and pursuant to Code
      Section 16-11-129; and
             (vii) Only apply to the carrying of
      handguns which are concealed.
      (B) Any weapons carry license holder who
carries a handgun in a manner or in a building,
property, room, or space in violation of this paragraph
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; provided, however,
that for a conviction of a first offense, such weapons
carry license holder shall be punished by a fine of
$25.00 and not be sentenced to serve any term of
confinement.
      (C) As used in this paragraph, the term:
             (i) “Concealed” means carried in
      such a fashion that does not actively solicit
      the attention of others and is not
      prominently, openly, and intentionally
      displayed except for purposes of defense of
      self or others. Such term shall include, but
      not be limited to, carrying on one’s person
      while such handgun is substantially, but
      not necessarily completely, covered by an
      article of clothing which is worn by such
      person, carrying within a bag of a
      nondescript nature which is being carried
      about by such person, or carrying in any
      other fashion as to not be clearly
      discernible by the passive observation of
      others.
             (ii) “Preschool or childcare space”
      means any room or continuous collection
      of rooms or any enclosed outdoor facilities
      which are separated from other spaces by
      an electronic mechanism or human-
      staffed point of controlled access and
      designated for the provision of preschool
      or childcare services, including, but not
      limited to, preschool or childcare services
      licensed or regulated under Article 1 of

                          9
that criminalized carrying guns on university and college campuses,

as it existed prior to the 2017 amendment (HB 280), OCGA §§ 16-

11-127, 16-11-127.1, and 16-11-173 operate together to require that

guns be allowed on USG campuses in ways that the professors allege

are contrary to “the Board of Regents’ and University System

institutions’ own duly adopted policies reflecting their independent

judgment.” After the governor approved HB 280, the Board’s

chancellor provided guidance to USG institutions to “implement the

law as written” and called for each institution to “review its campus

conduct and weapons policies to ensure that they comply with these

changes to the law.” The Board of Regents then amended its Policy

Manual and adopted a weapons policy, applicable to all USG

institutions, that largely mirrored the 2017 statutory amendments,

including the definitions of “weapon” and “concealed” and the

authority of weapons carry license holders to carry handguns on

USG campuses, subject to the same exceptions set out in the 2017

                  Chapter 1A of Title 20.
See also Ga. L. 2022, p. 74, §§ 6; 7 (replacing “license holder” with “lawful
weapons carrier” in OCGA §§ 16-11-127 (c) and 16-11-127.1).
                                     10
amendment to OCGA § 16-11-127.1. In the complaint, the professors

articulated in detail reasons they believe that the revised policy

regarding the carrying of weapons on USG campuses, following the

2017 statutory amendments, greatly increases the risk of injury and

death to themselves, their students, and other persons on USG

campuses, and significantly impairs their ability to fulfill their role

in the educational mission of the USG.

      The crux of the professors’ constitutional challenge to the 2017

amendment is that, in adopting the amendment, the General

Assembly, to the detriment of the USG’s educational mission,

“usurp[ed] the Board of Regents’ constitutionally conferred,

exclusive authority over the government, control, and management”

of the USG, specifically, the Board’s “authority to regulate, in its

independent judgment, guns on college campuses.” The professors

alleged that they are injured by what they deem a “separation-of-

powers violation.” 11 They argue that the trial court erred to the

       See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Par. III (“The legislative, judicial,
      11

and executive powers shall remain separate and distinct[.]”).
                                         11
extent that it dismissed their claim as moot, arguing that, “[a]s a

matter of law, a separation-of-powers violation is not mooted by the

fact that the encroached-upon entity has acquiesced — or even

affirmatively approved of — the encroachment.”

     The professors acknowledge the absence of Georgia precedent

for this principle and cite as persuasive authority several United

States Supreme Court cases. But even assuming we found these

federal cases persuasive, they do not lead to a conclusion in this case

that the professors’ claims are not moot. These federal cases share a

common thread that does not run through this case. In those cases,

a legislative act challenged on separation-of-powers or Tenth

Amendment grounds directly caused the harm complained of, such

that some indication of agreement with the legislative act by the

allegedly-encroached-upon entity could not moot a challenge to the

legislation. 12 Here, in contrast, the Board formally took its own

     12 See Selia Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 140 SCt
2183, 2192, 2196 (207 LE2d 494) (2020) (concluding that the structure of a new
regulatory agency created by Congress violated separation-of-powers
principles by insulating the director from removal by the President; rejecting

                                     12
action to adopt a particular policy, and it is this policy, not any

legislation, that is causing the state of affairs about which the

the argument that a litigant challenging an action by the agency must show
that the act would not have been taken if the director had been subject to
presidential control); Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight
Bd., 561 U.S. 477, 497-498 (130 SCt 3138, 177 LE2d 706) (2010) (concluding
that Congress’s creation of federal accounting oversight board that was not
subject to presidential control violated separation-of-powers principles,
notwithstanding that the President signed the act creating the board without
expressing any separation-of-powers concerns); New York v. United States, 505
U.S. 144, 177, 180-183 (112 SCt 2408, 120 LE2d 120) (1992) (concluding that
congressional act regarding states’ disposal of radioactive waste violated Tenth
Amendment, notwithstanding that public officials from the state challenging
the law “lent their support to the Act’s enactment”); Metro. Washington
Airports Auth. v. Citizens for Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 501 U.S. 252,
264-270, 276-277 & n.13 (111 SCt 2298, 115 LE2d 236 (1991) (concluding that
a congressional act conditioning the transfer of operating control of certain
airports on the creation of an oversight board comprised of members of
Congress violated separation-of-powers principles notwithstanding that the
board was established by the bylaws of airports authority that was created by
legislation enacted by Virginia and the District of Columbia; the challenge to
the oversight board’s veto power was ripe even if that power had not yet been
exercised to challengers’ detriment); see also Natl. Labor Relations Bd. v.
Canning, 573 U.S. 513, 570-572 (134 SCt 2550, 189 LE2d 538) (2014) (Scalia,
J., concurring) (rejecting the Court’s reliance on the Senate’s historical failure
to counter “with sufficient vigor” presidents’ reliance on the Recess
Appointments Clause to fill vacancies that initially occur before, but continue
to exist during, a recess of the Senate; citing precedent that, “[s]ince the
separation of powers exists for the protection of individual liberty, its vitality
does not depend on whether the encroached-upon branch approves the
encroachment” (citations and punctuation omitted)); Glidden Co. v. Zdanok,
370 U.S. 530, 532-533 (82 SCt 1459, 8 LE2d 671) (1962) (plurality opinion)
(considering an argument that litigants were denied the protection guaranteed
by Article III of having judges with tenure and compensation preside over their
cases, notwithstanding that the Chief Justice of the United States, pursuant
to statute, had designated the judges to preside over the cases).
                                       13
professors complain.

     In determining that this action by the Board moots the

professors’ challenge to the 2017 amendment, we do not concern

ourselves with why the Board took this action. We do not look behind

the exercise of government power to determine the subjective

reasons — legal, political, or otherwise — for a particular action, so

long as the action was within the government actor’s authority.

Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a significant executive- or

legislative-branch action where the knowledge of the positions of

various other governmental actors will not factor into the decision.

     Here, what matters is not why the Board adopted the policy in

question, but merely that it did do so. Granting the only relief the

professors seek — a declaration that the 2017 amendment to OCGA

§ 16-11-127.1 constituted a separation-of-powers violation — would

not eliminate the harm of which the professors complain, because it

would not eliminate the immediate source of that alleged harm —

the weapons policy adopted by the Board. That this sought-after

relief would not redress the professors’ stated grievance means that

                                 14
this case is moot. The trial court thus did not err in dismissing the

professors’ complaint. See Berzett, 301 Ga. at 394-396; Baker, 271

Ga. at 214-215 (1); Fourth St. Baptist Church, 253 Ga. at 369 (1).

   Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur, except Warren,
McMillian, and Pinson, JJ., disqualified.

                                 15