Pa. Supreme Court asked to re-examine Act 13 ruling
Opponents of Act 13 said state agencies essentially looked to have a redo Thursday when they asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to resubmit testimony before the court had even issued its final ruling.
Jon Kamin, co-counsel for Robinson Township, one of the municipalities that originally filed to stop Act 13, said the legal maneuver was rare.
“This is straight out of a Hollywood movie like ‘The Pelican Brief,'” Kamin said. “It’s something out of a John Grisham novel.
“This certainly is unprecedented.”
The Pennsylvania Utilities Commission and Department of Environmental Protection asked the court to reopen the case and allow newly appointed Justice Correale Stevens to rule on the matter.
The court’s final ruling was expected this year.
State legislators enacted Pennsylvania’s Act 13 law in 2012. It gave state agencies oversight on most aspects of the hydraulic fracturing process that extracts natural gas from the Marcellus Shale formation.
In a separate filing, the PUC also asked the court to reconsider a July 25 ruling that quashed an appeal on the injunction stopping the PUC from implementing zoning oversight.
In July 2012, the court deemed portions of Act 13 that revoked municipalities’ ability to make zoning decisions unconstitutional in a 3-3 split. An injunction was issued blocking certain zoning and land usage aspects of the act.
A final ruling on the entire law was not expected until later this year.
The seven-person Supreme Court was down one member during the original 2012 arguments due to the legal troubles of Justice Joan Orie Melvin, who was convicted on corruption charges in February. Governor Tom Corbett appointed Justice Correale Stevens to take her place July 30, prompting state agencies to apply for reargument.
State Rep. Jesse White, D-Cecil, was one of 44 House Democrats who filed a legal brief in favor of municipalities fighting the law. He said the latest move by the state amounts to an attempt to stack the deck.
“The Corbett Administration is a party to this case,” White said. “To have them say, ‘We want to be heard in front of the justice appointed by Corbett’ – it raises a couple of eyebrows.”
But Nils Hagen-Frederiksen, press secretary for the state’s Office of General Counsel, said the move was a fairly common judicial procedure.
“In past changes to the court, there have been cases that have been resubmitted, or the court will resubmit it to itself,” Hagen-Frederiksen said. “With seven justices, you can get a clear ruling.”
Hagen-Frederiksen was unsure if there had ever been an application for resubmission before a court had given its final ruling, but said regardless of the outcome, it was likely the losing party would file an appeal if there were only six judges. He also said it was common for judges to hear cases involving the people who had appointed them.
“Given the importance and impact of Act 13, we feel as if it’s in the best interest of all Pennsylvanians to have the entire Supreme Court consider this issue,” Hagen-Frederiksen added.
Technically, the justices are not allowed to speak about a ruling before final opinions are written, so any assumption that a ruling would follow the same 3-3 split as the injunction ruling would be speculation. But a tie would uphold the previous court’s ruling that the zoning provision was unconstitutional.
Brian Coppola, supervisor for Robinson Township, said the move to get Justice Stevens to hear the case was nothing less than an attack on the judicial system.
“Here’s the kicker,” Coppola said. “If we win, everything stays the same. If we lose, they’ve thrown our government out the window…
“We believe in the Constitution, and we believe that Act 13 is trampling it. So, for somebody to manipulate the courts to get the ruling they want is an even bigger affront to our Constitution.”