Weeks v. Dep't of Human Servs. of Pa.

255 A.3d 660

Jasmine WEEKS, Arnell Howard, Patricia Shallick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioners

v.DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Respondent

No. 409 M.D. 2019

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued February 8, 2021

Decided May 13, 2021

Maria Pulzetti, Philadelphia, for Petitioners.

Frank L. Tamulonis, Philadelphia, for Respondent.

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, President Judge, HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge (P), HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION BY JUDGE LEAVITT

Jasmine Weeks, Arnell Howard, and Patricia Shallick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (collectively, Petitioners), have filed a class action to have Act 12 of 2019¹ declared unconstitutional and its enforcement enjoined. Act 12 eliminated the General Assistance cash benefit program administered by the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (Department) but continued the General Assistance medical assistance program. It also enacted several amendments related to the provision of medical care to certain low-income individuals. Petitioners contend that Act 12 violated the "single-subject rule"² and the "original purpose rule"³ in the Pennsylvania Constitution and, thus, is void and unenforceable. Before the Court are the Department's preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer requesting the dismissal of Petitioners’ amended petition for review. On March 24, 2021, this Court granted the Department's preliminary objections and dismissed the petition. Thereafter, Petitioners filed an application for reargument/reconsideration asserting that the Court misapprehended the nature of Act 12. The Court granted reconsideration⁴ to clarify that Act 12 pertains to the provision of medical care to certain low-income persons and correct Petitioners’ misimpression of our understanding of Act 12. We grant the Department's preliminary objections and dismiss the petition after reconsideration.

Background

On June 28, 2019, House Bill 33, Printer's Number 2182, was signed into law as Act 12. Petition for Review (Petition) ¶62. Promptly thereafter, the Department notified all persons enrolled in General Assistance that their last monthly cash benefit would be disbursed on July 31, 2019. Petition ¶70. The affected persons had received between $174 and $215 per month, depending on their county of residence. Petition ¶35.

On July 22, 2019, Petitioners filed a petition for review in this Court's original jurisdiction on behalf of themselves and the 11,844 Pennsylvanians receiving General Assistance cash benefits as of July 31, 2019. Petition ¶9. The petition for review sought (1) a declaratory judgment that Act 12 violated Article III, Sections 1 and 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and (2) a permanent injunction against the enforcement of those provisions of Act 12 that eliminated the General Assistance cash benefit program. Simultaneously, Petitioners filed an application for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Department's enforcement of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Act 12, pending disposition of the merits of the petition for review.

On August 1, 2019, this Court denied Petitioners’ application for a preliminary injunction for the stated reason that Petitioners failed to show either a clear right to relief or immediate and irreparable harm. Weeks v. Department of Human Services (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 409 M.D. 2019, filed August 1, 2019) (Weeks I ). Petitioners appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed this Court's denial of a preliminary injunction. Weeks v. Department of Human Services , 222 A.3d 722 (Pa. 2019) ( Weeks II ).⁵ On the single-subject requirement, the Supreme Court explained:

[Act 12] as a whole relates to the provision of benefits pertaining to the basic necessities of life to certain low-income individuals.... [S]uch a topic is, in our view, both unifying and sufficiently narrow to fit within the single-subject rubric as that concept has been spelled out in the reported decisions of Pennsylvania appellate courts.

Id . at 730 (emphasis added). With regard to the original purpose requirement, the Supreme Court stated as follows:

[House Bill] 33 originally had only three provisions, all relating in some way to Cash Assistance. The additional sections which were included in the final version of the bill all fit within the unifying topic mentioned in the above discussion pertaining to the single-subject rule.

Id . at 731.

Following the Supreme Court's decision, Petitioners filed an amended petition for review. This pleading repeated the same constitutional challenges presented in the original petition for review, but it updated and expanded the factual allegations.⁶ The amended petition avers that House Bill 33 was introduced on January 4, 2019, under the title that follows:

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.

Amended Petition for Review (Amended Petition), Exhibit I at 1. House Bill 33 revised the definition of "General Assistance" in the Human Services Code,⁷ which referred to the cash benefit and the medical assistance programs. Amended Petition ¶42. House Bill 33 specified that the eligibility criteria for General Assistance would apply only to the General Assistance-related medical assistance program. It removed the receipt of General Assistance cash benefits from the list of ways a person can be determined to be "medically needy." Id.

Following House consideration of House Bill 33, the legislation was amended. The amendments expanded the Medicaid nursing facility incentive payments for fiscal year 2019-2020; revised definitions for the Statewide Quality Care Assessment to effect a statewide tax on hospitals; and reauthorized the municipal hospital assessment for cities of the first class. Amended Petition ¶¶46-48. Additionally, the Bill's title was changed to state as follows:

An Act 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 needed only medical assistance programs, for the medically needy and determination of eligibility 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.

Amended Petition, Exhibit F at 2.

On May 11, 2020, the Department filed new preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to the amended petition, contending that it does not state a claim under Article III, Sections 1 or 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The preliminary objections raise three issues: (1) Act 12 did not violate the "single-subject" requirement in Article III, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution ; (2) Act 12 did not violate the "original purpose" requirement in Article III, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution ; and (3) the amended petition, if granted, would impermissibly intrude upon the legislative function.⁸ The Department asks this Court to sustain its preliminary objections and dismiss the amended petition in its entirety.

For this Court to sustain preliminary objections, "it must appear with certainty that the law will permit no recovery[.]" McCord v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board , 9 A.3d 1216, 1219 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (quotation omitted). Statutes are "strongly presumed to be constitutional, including the manner in which they were passed." Commonwealth v. Neiman , 624 Pa. 53, 84 A.3d 603, 611 (2013) (quotation omitted). Stated otherwise, a statute will be held constitutional "unless it clearly, palpably, and plainly violates the Constitution." Id. (quotation omitted). All doubts are resolved in favor of the statute's constitutionality. Id . In reviewing preliminary objections, this Court assumes that all facts pled and all reasonable inferences therefrom are true. This assumption does not extend to legal conclusions asserted in the pleading. Mazur v. Cuthbert , 186 A.3d 490, 502 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018).

We address the Department's preliminary objections seriately.

Article III, Section 3 – Single-subject Rule

Petitioners assert that Act 12 covers "disparate subjects" that lack a "unifying scheme." Amended Petition at 30, ¶76. The Department demurs. It contends that Petitioners offer a myopic construction of Act 12 and an overly restrictive reading of the Constitution.

Article III, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states as follows:

No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except a general appropriation bill or a bill codifying or compiling the law or a part thereof.

PA. CONST . art. III, § 3. "Known as the ‘single-subject rule,’ this constitutional mandate stands in the way of the omnibus bill that addresses so many subjects that the real purpose of the legislation is disguised in a misleading title." DeWeese v. Weaver , 824 A.2d 364, 369 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). Article III, Section 3 prevents "logrolling," which is "embracing in one bill several distinct matters, none of which could singly obtain the assent of the legislature, and procuring its passage by combining the minorities who favored the individual matters to form a majority that would adopt them all." City of Philadelphia v. Commonwealth , 575 Pa. 542, 838 A.2d 566, 586 (2003) (quotation omitted). The single-subject rule also prevents the attachment of riders "which...