‘Constitution was not followed': Legislature questions line-item vetoes to Nebraska budget bills
Speaker John Arch of La Vista listens to State Sen. Danielle Conrad of Lincoln. Aug. 2, 2024. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)
Editor's note: This story has been updated with response from the Governor's Office.
LINCOLN — The Nebraska Legislature, at least for now, has blanketly rejected four line-item budget vetoes Thursday from Gov. Jim Pillen and questioned whether his objections were constitutionally submitted and whether the vetoes count.
Speaker John Arch of La Vista announced that the Legislature was not in receipt of the actual line-itemed bills — Legislative Bills 261 and 264 — by the end-of-day Wednesday. Under the Nebraska Constitution, if the Legislature is in session, vetoes must be filed with the Clerk of the Legislature within five days, excluding Sunday.
If the Legislature is out of session when the bills are returned, vetoed bills are filed with the Nebraska Secretary of State's Office.
Pillen announces $14.5 million in vetoes from Nebraska budget, 83% of it from Supreme Court
The Legislature did not receive the budget bills with the line-item objections until Thursday morning, hours after the midnight deadline and a half-day after the bills had been delivered to the Secretary of State's Office but not the Clerk of the Legislature's Office, Arch said.
'As such, we don't believe that we can accept these vetoes,' Arch said.
Laura Strimple, a spokesperson for Pillen, said the governor took action on LB 261 at 1:08 p.m. Wednesday and LB 264 at 1:10 p.m. Wednesday. She said Pillen 'clearly took the legally required steps to exercise his veto authority by surrendering physical possession and the power to approve or reject the bills.'
Strimple said the bills were sent to both the Secretary of State's Office and the Clerk's Office by end-of-day Wednesday.
'It is unfortunate that the Legislature is giving up its opportunity to take action on the Governor's veto and has, by unilaterally returning the mainline budget to the Governor, created an impasse,' Strimple said. 'We will consult with the Attorney General's Office and other counsel on next steps to effectuate the law.'
Arch, upon learning of Strimple's statement, said the Legislature's position stood. He said he didn't know if the Governor's Office would sue to enforce the vetoes, but he hopes it won't.
Speaking with reporters, Arch said that to his knowledge, nothing like this has happened before and that the Legislature would be gathering facts on the situation.
'I'm hoping that in our discussions, we can resolve the issue,' Arch said. 'But on the plain reading of the Constitution, we have concerns.'
The 2025-27 budget bills have faced continued twists and turns accelerated by a major projected budget shortfall of at least $630 million by the time the budget bills passed last week. Hundreds of millions of dollars were moved around to fill the hole, including $147 million from the state's 'rainy day' cash reserve fund.
Pillen's vetoes sought to reduce state spending by $14.5 million, $12 million of which was cut from the allotment to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which court leaders said could be detrimental to various services.
State Sen. Rob Clements of Elmwood, chair of the Legislature's Appropriations Committee, said the budget-writing process has been stressful but that he was 'pleased' with ending at a balanced budget. Of Pillen's vetoes, he said he agreed 'the Constitution was not followed.'
'What happened with the delivery of the vetoes is not a problem with the budget,' Clements said.
Now in his ninth year on the committee, and in his final two-year budget, Clements said he enjoys numbers and that it is 'a real relief' to have reached the end.
Multiple Appropriations Committee members were joyful at the conclusion, with some grinning ear to ear, hugging one another and pumping their fists in the air after Arch announced the conclusion. Up until that moment, lawmakers and lobbyists were abuzz that, for seemingly the first time, vetoes might have been stopped without a vote of the Legislature.
Veto overrides take at least 30 votes and often feature intense gubernatorial pressure, often behind the scenes, to flip votes on legislation that often first passes with more than 30 votes.
State Sen. Terrell McKinney of Omaha, who will seek to override a veto of LB 287, a bill trying to crack down on bedbugs in Omaha and give the Omaha City Council additional oversight of the Omaha Housing Authority, took a different view.
'I wish the veto for LB 287 was invalid too, but overall it's karma,' McKinney said.
State Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha, a new face on the Appropriations Committee this year, said she feels the Governor's Office would try to make the vetoes stick anyway. She said the drama would end up in front of the people of Nebraska.
'I told everybody this morning, 'Let's just descend into the chaos.' And they took me literally,' Cavanaugh told the Nebraska Examiner.
She continued: 'I mean, process matters, the Constitution matters. We're upholding the Constitution, which is our job, and that's pretty much it.'
Nebraska Examiner reporter Juan Salinas II contributed to this report.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Supreme Court's Inconsistency Is Very Revealing
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. One of the most vital components of the rule of law is a commitment to neutral, principled analysis in which standards are adhered to and similar cases lead to similar conclusions. Such neutrality lies at the core of the courts' promise to be 'bulwarks of a limited Constitution,' as Alexander Hamilton put it in 'Federalist No. 78.' That is why the Supreme Court's seeming abandonment of the neutrality principle is so distressing. The most recent example came in the Court's decision last month to allow President Donald Trump to fire members of two boards—the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board—whom Congress had attempted to protect against removal through legislative declarations of independence. In doing so, the Court carved out an arbitrary and unjustified exception to the logic it had otherwise adopted, demonstrating the capricious, politicized nature of its decision making. To understand the extent of the problems here, begin by considering one of those neutral principles that is, theoretically, to be applied without regard for result: the 'unitary executive' doctrine. According to this doctrine, the Constitution says that all officials who exercise executive power in the U.S. government are answerable to the president. It derives its force from both constitutional text and a view that unelected, independent agency bureaucrats are able to obstruct a president's power, and some recourse must be available. Consistent with that view, legal scholars and practitioners who adhere to this theory believe that a president should be able to remove any officer of the United States who exercises executive authority—with good reason or, in their view, without any reason at all (what we lawyers call 'removal without cause'). The debate over the limits on a president's removal authority is not an academic exercise about theoretical independence. To the contrary, it can have a very real, practical impact. The 19th-century lawyer and statesman Daniel Webster warned that unlimited removal power 'tends to turn the whole body of public officers into partisans, dependents, favorites, sycophants, and man-worshippers.' Or as Judge Joseph Story put it in his famous commentary on the Constitution, such a power 'may be made, in the hands of a bold and designing man of high ambition and feeble principles, into an instrument of the worst oppression and most vindictive vengeance.' The constitutional authority for independent agencies was first addressed nearly a century ago, in the New Deal era, when the Court carved out an area of executive activity that Congress could permissibly invest with some degree of independence. The oldest of these cases, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, allowed Congress to enact limits on the president's removal power for commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission—providing that they be removed only for 'good cause,' by which Congress meant some deliberate act of misfeasance. Notably, from a historical perspective, Congress imposed the limits (which the Court held were constitutional) in part to prevent President Franklin D. Roosevelt from firing holdovers from the previous Republican administration who were allegedly thwarting his more liberal policies. [Adam Serwer: Trump is tired of courts telling him he's breaking the law] The Court's Trump v. Wilcox decision last month, permitting Trump to remove the two senior board members, invoked the unitary-executive doctrine. Even though the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board are structurally indistinguishable from the FTC (at issue in Humphrey's Executor), the majority concluded that Trump may 'remove without cause executive officers who exercise power on his behalf.' And so 90 years of law meets its end. Many conservative legal scholars will approve of this conclusion. Other commentators will think that it too casually discards nearly a century of precedent. But whatever one may think of the underlying principle, both groups could and should hope for its unbiased application. If this is the new rule, then it should apply to all executive agencies. The specter of that possibility is why one of the strongest arguments against the unitary-executive principle has always been that if it were neutrally applied, it would necessarily allow the president plenary authority over every officer currently considered independent—including, most relevantly, the members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee. Because the Fed's core task of setting monetary policy is an executive act (for it surely is not legislative), the Fed, in theory, ought to be subject to presidential control. Such a result would be so disruptive that it is unthinkable. The independence of the Federal Reserve is considered a cornerstone of global economic stability. Multiple times in the past few months, the mere suggestion that Trump might fire the chair, Jerome Powell, has sent the markets into a tailspin. That is not because Powell himself is so beloved (though he has proved a very steady leader), but because markets cannot tolerate the uncertainty and disruption that his dismissal would portend. Critics have long made a simple counterargument: The unitary-executive doctrine cannot be valid, because it leads to unacceptable results. No principled way of distinguishing the NLRB and the MSPB (as well as a host of other independent agencies) from the Federal Reserve exists. If the loss of independence at the Fed is unthinkable, it can only be because the unitary executive is itself unthinkable. [Quinta Jurecic: What recourse does the Supreme Court actually have?] In an ideal legal world, this sort of argument would be persuasive. For the current Supreme Court, rejecting it required nothing more than inventing a new standard. In a single sentence, the Court tossed off the argument for equivalence, saying, 'The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.' This is a remarkably weak argument. Neither of the original banks was a significant executive actor. They were not, for example, authorized to set monetary policy, as is now the Fed's job. And, disturbingly for those who value judicial precision, the authority the Court cited said no such thing. It is almost as if the citation was made up by a hallucinating artificial intelligence. So the historical analogy breaks down on the merits. It also requires answering this question: How old is old enough? One is left to wonder why the historical tradition of the first two banks (respectively, 240 and 190 years old) is sufficient, but the NLRB's history (it is now 90 years old) and, presumably, the FTC's age (now 110) are not. There is, sadly, only one plausible conclusion: The Court wanted to endorse the unitary-executive theory, but it created an exception for the Federal Reserve because the implications of its reasoning were too severe to tolerate. Call it the 'our theory can't create market catastrophe, so we will arbitrarily carve out the markets' principle, which is no principle at all. It's just artificial line drawing to avoid the consequences of one's own logic. This is not the only recent instance of the Court ruling by ipse dixit—making law based on unsupported dogmatic assertion rather than judgment. The capricious rejection of principle in the service of conservative political desires has become a habit with this Court. [Adam Serwer: The Supreme Court's 'selective proceduralism' would suffocate the Constitution] Consider, as another example, the Supreme Court's decision overturning 50 years of precedent in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The decision rested on the Court's conclusion that the Constitution contains no substantive text protecting a woman's right to an abortion, and that such unenumerated rights should not be recognized if they are not 'deeply rooted in the Nation's history.' Again, one may agree with that principle (and with the Court's history regarding abortion rights), or one may not. But either way, one would expect that the Court would apply the principle neutrally. And if one thinks that the text of the Constitution has no protection for abortion, then, as Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion, all of the jurisprudential developments that protect sexual intimacy are wrong. In his view, not just abortion but also contraception and same-sex marriage are constitutionally unprotected. Fair enough, and at least Thomas has the virtue of intellectual consistency. But the implications of his views were so severe that at least one member of the Court felt the need to disavow them. Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence assured the nation that the rule Dobbs created was unique to the abortion context. Trust me, he told us, gay marriage is not at risk. But that assurance is no more than another instance of making up the rules to suit the situation. If, as Dobbs says, the test is whether a practice is 'deeply rooted in the Nation's history,' then gay marriage is, if anything, on far thinner ice than abortion, and contraception is not too far behind. [Stephen I. Vladeck: What the courts can still do to constrain Trump] Again, if the impartial application of a new rule of law seems to have unacceptable results, the proper answer is to jettison the new rule as untenable, not to adopt it and then artificially carve out an exception. The promise of unbiased application of the law is why, even if you don't believe he meant it, Chief Justice John Roberts's famous characterization of judges as umpires calling 'balls and strikes' was so powerful. Americans don't expect perfection in judges' application of that principle. But the rule of law is, at bottom, a promise to minimize variations when possible. To be sure, the mitigation of harms is welcomed—I certainly don't want Trump to have the power to fire the Fed chair. But the intellectual dishonesty necessary to reach this result is stunning. Were the justices truly committed to calling balls and strikes, they would recognize that the horrific consequences of their reasoning suggest fault in that reasoning. It's all a bit reminiscent of Bang the Drum Slowly, a Robert De Niro and Michael Moriarty movie in which the pair play together on a baseball team. They welcome rookies by hazing them in a number of ways, one of which is to introduce them to the card game TEGWAR—'the exciting game without any rules.' The pair make up the rules as they go along, reinforcing each other's absurdities ('I just got a double krankle') and confounding the uncomprehending rookies. As a delightful vignette, TEGWAR is a comedic moment in a somber character study. When TEGWAR becomes the analytical methodology for the Supreme Court, it is a tragedy—for the rule of law and for the nation. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The FBI raided the wrong house. The Supreme Court says the family is allowed to sue
A family whose home was mistakenly raided in the middle of the night by the FBI eight years ago will be permitted to continue their damages lawsuit after the Supreme Court on Thursday sent their case back to a federal appeals court for additional review. The outcome represents a technical win for the family, which had been barred by lower courts from suing the government over the incident. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for a unanimous court. Curtrina Martin, her partner and her then-7-year-old son were startled awake in 2017 when a six-agent SWAT team – believing that they were targeting the home of a gang member – smashed her front door with a battering ram, detonated a flash-bang grenade and rushed into their suburban Atlanta home. At some point after Martin was dragged from the closet where she was hiding and held at gunpoint, agents realized they had the wrong house. The federal government is generally immune from lawsuits, but Congress carved out an exception for some situations involving negligent or wrongful acts of government employees. That law was amended in 1974, following a series of other high-profile raids at the wrong house, to expand the ability of Americans to sue federal law enforcement agents. But the Atlanta-based 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the government, holding that the Constitution's Supremacy Clause barred tort claims against the federal government in circumstances where an official's actions had 'some nexus with furthering a federal policy' and could 'reasonably be characterized' as within the range of federal law. The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law group that represented the Martin family, argued that outcome would completely undermine the intent of Congress. Lawmakers strengthened the Federal Tort Claims Act following a pair of high-profile wrong-house raids in Collinsville, Illinois, in the early 1970s. During arguments before the Supreme Court in April, the FBI's handling of the Martin raid drew particular scorn from Justice Gorsuch, a conservative and sometimes-skeptic of federal government power. 'You might look at the address of the house before you knock down the door,' an incredulous Gorsuch pressed the lawyer representing the Justice Department. 'How about making sure you're on the right street? I mean, just the right street? Checking the street sign? Is that, you know, asking too much?' The Justice Department argued in part that it should not be liable because federal law bars tort suits when a federal employee is exercising discretion in carrying out their work. In this case, the government argued, the agents had to exercise discretion in how they confirmed they were at the correct house. This story is breaking and has been updated with additional details.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Worcester schools budget proposal: $586 million, no layoffs planned, uncertainty remains
WORCESTER ― The proposed Worcester Public Schools budget for the next school year is set at $586 million, an increase of $33.8 million, or 6.1% over last year. The district announced earlier this month that the proposed budget would be within striking distance of $600 million and the budget is undergoing a series of public hearings before it will ultimately be voted on by the School Committee. Unlike last year, which saw the district cut nearly 200 positions due to budget shortfalls, no layoffs are anticipated under the current proposed budget. However, in a press release the district has noted that a few outstanding items remain beyond the city's control, such as actions by the federal government, which controls 9% of the district's proposed budget, and state funding. More: Impact of school budget cuts: 86 classroom teachers, 70 support staff, 22 administrators "No layoffs are planned due to the budget next year. However, Worcester Public Schools continues to monitor actions by the federal government, which provides 9% of the district budget. Additionally, the state Legislature may make adjustments to the final amount that Worcester Public Schools receives," the district stated. From the proposed budget, $142 million will come from the city, while $381 million comes from the state, with the remaining funding coming from federal grants and other minor revenue sources. Superintendent Rachel Monárrez stated that the district is proud to be past the difficult cutting process and that resources can be used to help the highest-need students in the district. "I am grateful we can begin to move our resource allocation in the right direction to support our scholars, especially our highest-need students, even if we are doing so incrementally,' Monárrez said. 'While factors such as inflation reimbursement and health benefits pose a challenge, we are building upon a strong foundation to ensure funding is used in the most effective manner possible, now and in the future.' The proposed budget would be the first in which the district uses what it calls its equity-based budgeting practice, a formula developed by Monárrez and Deputy Superintendent and Chief Financial Officer Brian Allen that is intended to better allocate resources to schools and students that have been historically underserved. Allen, who will take over as superintendent in July, said the budget has been constructed with the intent of putting educators at the forefront. "This budget prioritizes classroom investments including common planning time and textbook and technology purchases, despite ongoing challenges," Allen stated. "Through it all, we are putting educator voice at the forefront and ensuring our budget is rooted in the district's 'Vision of a Learner' and strategic plan priorities." Part of the budget will add eight additional climate and culture coordinators in Worcester secondary schools, new positions that were created last year to help improve student behavior and encourage better outcomes for students struggling in school. More: Climate and culture team aims for reform at Worcester East Middle School Other aspects of the budget include funding to replace approximately 6,000 Chromebooks, which are given out to students across the district, the use of "late" buses at all middle and high schools to help transport students who have after-school activities, and to maintain current staffing ratios of 21 students per teacher across the district. The School Committee held public meetings on the budget May 19 and 27, and will hold additional meetings on June 5 and 18. This article originally appeared on Telegram & Gazette: Worcester Public Schools proposed budget set at $586 million
