Weeks ex rel. Situated v. Dep't of Human Servs. of Commonwealth

302 A.3d 678

Jasmine WEEKS, Arnell Howard, Patricia Shallick, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee

No. 22 EAP 2021

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued: September 14, 2022

Decided: September 28, 2023

Elizabeth Mary Casey, Esq., FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, for Amici Curiae HUNGER-FREE PENNSYLVANIA, American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Gary S. Gildin, Seth Kreimer, Donald Marritz, Robert F. Williams.

Louise Ellen Hayes, Esq., Amy E. Hirsch, Esq., Maripat Pileggi, Esq., Robin Resnick, Esq., Richard P. Weishaupt, Esq., Community Legal Services of Philadelphia, for Appellants Jasmine Weeks, Arnell Howard, Patricia Shallick.

Andrew Chapman Christy, Esq., ACLU of Pennsylvania, for American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Gary S. Gildin, Seth Kreimer, Donald Marritz, Robert F. Williams.

Kyle Jamison Fisher, Esq., Pennsylvania Health Law Project, Peter Zurflieh, Esq., Community Justice Project, for Community Justice Project, Pennsylvania Health Law Project, Hunger-Free Pennsylvania, Homeless Advocacy Project, Women's Law Project, Success Against All Odds, Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia FIGHT, Coalition for Low Income Pennsylvanians, Disabled in Action of PA, Appellant Amici Curiae.

Lawrence Jay Beaser, Esq., Heidi Grace Crikelair, Esq., Heidi Grace Crikelair, Esq., Christopher A. Lewis, Esq., Blank Rome LLP, Matthew John McLees, Esq., Department of Human Services, Frank Louis Tamulonis III, Esq., for Appellee.

BAER, C.J., TODD, DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, JJ.

OPINION

CHIEF JUSTICE TODD

Article III of the Pennsylvania Constitution, through a constellation of provisions, ensures a transparent, orderly, and understandable process by which legislation is passed into law in our Commonwealth. It accomplishes these goals by imposing certain foundational requirements, and placing certain basic prohibitions, on the legislative process. More specifically, Article III, Section 1 mandates that a law be passed through a bill and prohibits the bill's original purpose from being changed on its passage through the Senate or the House of Representatives. ¹ Similarly, Article III, Section 3 requires that proposed legislation be contained in a single subject, and that that subject be clearly expressed in a title. ² In this direct appeal, we consider a class action challenge to the constitutionality of Act 12 of 2019 ("Act 12"), ³ which, inter alia , enacted changes to the Pennsylvania Human Services Code. ⁴ In particular, we must determine whether the lawmaking which culminated in the passing of Act 12 satisfied Article III's requirements. ⁵ For the reasons set forth below, we hold that the process by which the General Assembly passed Act 12 satisfied both the "original purpose" and "single subject" mandates found in Article III of our Constitution. Thus, we affirm the order of the Commonwealth Court and find the statutory enactment to be constitutional.

I. Factual and Procedural History

To fully analyze the constitutional questions presented by this appeal, a review of the background of Act 12 is required. Central to the current dispute regarding Act 12 is the General Assistance cash assistance ("Cash Assistance") program, which was created in 1967. This state program was administered by Appellee Department of Human Services ("DHS"). DHS was authorized to disburse up to a maximum of $215 in monthly cash assistance grants to individuals who were unable to work and had no other source of income, including those who had physical or mental disabilities ; were pregnant; were victims of domestic violence and receiving protective services from DHS; were enrolled in a substance abuse treatment program, which imposed conditions precluding them from working; or were nonparental caretakers of children under the age of 13, or nonparental caretakers of an individual suffering from a physical or mental disability. 62 P.S. § 432. As of July 2019, over 12,000 individuals across Pennsylvania received Cash Assistance benefits. Pennsylvania also provides a General Assistance medical assistance ("Medical Assistance") program which provides state-funded health insurance to individuals in certain categories who do not qualify for the joint federal-state Medical Assistance program.

The Cash Assistance program ceased operation in July 2012 after then-Governor Tom Corbett signed Act 80 of 2012, ⁶ which, like Act 12, provided for the program's elimination. Several individuals with disabilities who benefitted from the Cash Assistance program, and organizations involved in the delivery of human services, challenged Act 80 by asserting that it violated Article III, Sections 1, 3, and 4 ⁷ of the Pennsylvania Constitution. In July 2018, our Court ruled that the means by which the General Assembly passed Act 80 violated Article III, Section 4 – which requires that all legislation be considered by each house of the legislature on "three different days." See Washington v. Department of Public Welfare , 647 Pa. 220, 188 A.3d 1135 (2018) (holding that Article III, Section 4 had been violated because the various provisions of the legislation which became Act 80 were added late in the legislative session to an empty "shell bill," the prior contents of which had been removed and enacted by other legislation, and the added provisions were not considered by each legislative chamber on three separate days, nor were they germane, as a matter of law, to the subject matter of the deleted provisions of the bill, or to each other). ⁸

Subsequent to our decision in Washington , in August 2018, DHS again began accepting applications for the Cash Assistance program, and, commencing in November 2018, DHS started issuing payments to applicants who met the eligibility criteria. However, in January 2019, a renewed effort was made to eliminate the Cash Assistance program, culminating in Act 12.

As the specific lawmaking process leading to Act 12 is at the core of the instant challenges, it is critical to review that process in some detail. Act 12 began with the introduction of House Bill ("H.B.") 33, Printer's Number ("P.N.") 0047. This bill was entitled:

Amending the act of June 13, 1967 (P.L. 31, No. 21), entitled "An act to consolidate, editorially revise, and codify the public welfare laws of the Commonwealth," in public assistance, further providing for definitions, for general assistance-related categorically needy and medically needy only medical assistance programs and for the medically needy and determination of eligibility.

Id. The bill made four changes to the Human Services Code: it terminated the Cash Assistance program; it affirmed that the Medical Assistance program would not be altered; ⁹ it created a definition of "General Assistance-related categorically needy medical assistance," which concerns medical assistance for certain types of "needy" persons; and it deleted the provision of the Human Services Code which classified an individual as "medically needy" and, thus, eligible for Medical Assistance benefits if he or she received Cash Assistance grants. This bill was considered twice by the full House and then referred to the House Appropriations Committee on March 27, 2019.

The Committee adopted amendments to H.B. 33, P.N. 0047, which was expanded to include revisions to other sections of the Human Services Code and was then denominated H.B. 33, P.N. 2182. These amendments included reauthorization of Nursing Facility Incentive Payments to qualified non-public nursing facilities serving low income individuals, i.e. , Medicaid patients — which were due to expire on June 30, 2019 — until June 30, 2020, and, as an incentive for such facilities to accept more Medicaid patients, doubled the amount of these payments from $8 million to $16 million. ¹⁰ The amendments also extended assessments on "high volume Medicaid hospitals" in Philadelphia ("Philadelphia Hospital Assessment"), which were set to expire on June 30, 2019, through June 2024, generating funding for low-income individuals. This revenue raising measure draws down matching federal Medicaid dollars through a levy on hospitals and generates over $165 million in revenue annually. H.B. 33, P.N. 2182, Senate Appropriations Fiscal Committee Note (June 20, 2019). Furthermore, the amendments altered the definition of a high-volume Medicaid hospital from a hospital providing over 90,000 days of care to Pennsylvania medical assistance patients to one providing over 60,000 days of inpatient care to such patients. The amendments also expanded the permissible uses by municipalities of the Philadelphia Hospital Assessment by allowing the municipalities to retain a portion of the revenues from those assessments for public health programs, including educational programs to reduce tobacco use and obesity ; air pollution monitoring; enforcement of lead-free rental requirements; programs to promote immunization; water quality programs; childhood literacy programs; and the provision of care services in neighborhood health centers. Additionally, the amendments revised the definitions for the Statewide Quality Care Assessments, a program which generates revenue to pay for healthcare for low-income individuals and constitutes a tax on all hospitals statewide, and which permits Pennsylvania to draw down on supplemental Medicaid payments from the federal government.

The following additional language was also added to the title of the bill:

and for medical assistance payments for institutional care; in hospital assessments, further providing for definitions, for authorization, for administration, for no hold harmless, for tax exemption and for time period; and, in statewide quality care assessment, further providing for definitions.

H.B. 33, P.N. 2182, Title.

The amended bill was reported out of the Appropriations Committee, and it was passed by the full...