Article I, Section 1:
Tredyffrin Outdoor, LLC v. Zoning Hearing Board of Tredyffrin Twp., 2023 WL 3266798 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (May 5, 2023), per Ceisler, J. , the Commonwealth Court held that a zoning ordinance’s carve-out provision making preexisting advertisement signs permissible by right violated Article I, Section 1 of the state Constitution. Article I, Section 1 gives property owners the right to enjoy their property. Townships may enact zoning ordinances that are in accordance with the township’s police powers. The Court found that the preexisting sign exemption at issue did not have a substantial relationship to the township’s police power and thus the statute violated the state Constitution.
Thiam v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, 2023 WL 4715186 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (July 25, 2023), per Cohn Jubelirer, J., the Commonwealth Court held that a law that required a natural hair braider to complete 300 hours of training and an examination violated Article I, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Article I, Section 1 guarantees one the right to pursue their chosen occupation. The Court found that requiring a person who has practiced the art of natural hair braiding for most of her life to undergo an additional 300 hours of training and pass an examination is unduly burdensome.
Allegheny Cnty. Airport Authority v. Belko, 2023 WL 6151388 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (September 21, 2023), per Wallace, J., the Court held that the disclosure of records of severance payments to terminated employees of a public agency did not violate the state Constitution. Article I, section I guarantees that an individual has a right to informational privacy. However, the Court held that the public’s interest in government transparency regarding the expenditure of public funds outweighed the former employees’ interests of privacy. The Court additionally held that the release of such records did not violate the employees’ rights to due process.
T.G.A. v. Dept. of Educ., 2023 WL 5918916 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (September 12, 2023), per Wojcik, J., the Court held that the Department of Education could not list the criminal charges of which an educator was acquitted, and which were expunged on its website. The Court ruled that doing so violated Article I, section 1 of the state constitution, which ensures the protection of one’s reputation.
Commonwealth v. Stilp, 2023 WL 6471742 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (October 5, 2023), per Wojcik, J., the Court held a local ordinance that prohibits the open burning of “rubbish” was not so vague that it was rendered void under Article I, Section 1 of the state constitution. The Court determined that the ordinance was sufficiently definite so that ordinary people could understand its meaning by its plain terms and did not have to guess at its meaning or application. The Court found that the ordinance also does not violate the First Amendment as it does not limit a person’s political speech.
R.W. v. Dept. of Education, 2023 WL 6852320 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (Oct. 18, 2023), per Wojcik, J., the Court held that the Department of Education’s maintenance of an educator’s expunged criminal records and suspension on its website violated the educator’s right to protect his reputation because it was not narrowly tailored to the Commonwealth’s interest in safeguarding students and school staff. The Court clarified that its ruling did not require the Department of Education to expunge or erase the educator’s discipline history from its website entirely. Additionally, the Department of Education did not violate the educator’s due process rights because the educator surrendered his teaching certificate and thus had not been deprived of a protected property interest.
J.C.D. v. A.L.R., 2023 WL 6853126 (Pa. 2023) (Oct. 18, 2023), per Brobson, J., the Court held that parents have a constitutional right to raise their children as they deem appropriate under Article I, Section 1 of the state constitution. However, the Court did not find that right to be applicable in determining whether appellate review of a claim challenging whether grandparents had standing to bring a child custody claim will be irreparably lost because the determination does not turn on the importance of the parents’ implicated right.
Knelly v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Health, — A.3d –, 2023 WL 8609225 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (Dec. 13, 2023), per McCullough, J., the Commonwealth Court held that the Department of Health’s revocation of an EMT’s certification after he entered a nolo contendere plea to felony strangulation violated Article I, Section 1 of the state Constitution. The EMS Act allows the Department of Health to discipline an EMS provider convicted of a felony by revoking the provider’s certification. However, because the nolo contendere plea does not admit guilt to a crime, the Court found that the revocation of the EMT’s certificate was unnecessary.
Article I, Section 5:
Bonner v. Chapman, 2023 WL 4188674 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (June 27, 2023), per Cohn Jubelirer, J., the Commonwealth Court held that the 3rd Circuit and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court did not invalidate any part of Act 77 of 2019 when they found in prior litigation that a timely received, otherwise valid mail-in or absentee ballot could not be rejected because the voter did not write the date on a declaration contained on the ballot’s return mailing envelope. Act 77 amended the Pennsylvania Election Code to expand mail-in voting and specifically states that a voter must fill out, date and sign the declaration on the envelope of an official election ballot. The Court held that the courts were merely engaging in their constitutional obligation to interpret a statute in the matters before them.
Article I, Section 8:
U.S. v. Eddings, 2023 WL 1775705 (W.D. Pa. 2023) (Feb. 6, 2023), per Horan, J., the court stated that it was not able to exclude evidence on the basis that it was obtained in violation of state law. The controlling precedent from the Third Circuit does not permit federal courts to exclude evidence that was obtained in compliance with federal law but not state law, so the court denied the defendant’s request to exclude evidence on these grounds.
Commonwealth v. Thompson, 2023 WL 1793568 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (Feb. 7, 2023), per Bender, J., the Superior Court ruled that an inventory search of a motor vehicle constitutes an exception to warrant requirement of Article I, Section 8 of the state constitution if done for purposes of community care. When an officer inventories a motor vehicle after ordering it to be towed to clear it from obstructing traffic, no warrant is necessary to search the vehicle and seize evidence of a crime discovered during that search.
William Penn Sch. Dist. v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Educ., 2023 WL 1990723 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (Feb. 7, 2023), per Jubelirer, J., the Commonwealth Court declared that the educational system of Pennsylvania deprives students of school districts in low property value areas the same opportunities and resources of students from high property value districts in violation of Article II, Section 32 of the Pennsylvania constitution. The court did not impose any penalty or propose any remedy, instead stating that it was the obligation of the legislative and executive branches to extend meaningful opportunity to all Pennsylvanian students.
Commonwealth v. Williams, 2023 WL 2151326 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (Feb. 22, 2023), per Dubow, J., the Superior Court ruled that for a defendant’s conviction to be vacated by retroactive application of the Alexander decision, that defendant must have argued at trial that there were no exigent circumstances permitting a warrantless search. Challenging exigency at every stage of adjudication that occurred after Alexander was published was insufficient to warrant retroactive application and vacate the conviction.
Commonwealth v. Ani, 2023 PA Super 67 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (Apr. 17, 2023) per Bender, J., the Superior Court affirmed the suppression of evidence found on a suspect’s phone pursuant to overly broad search warrants. Evidence that a suspect used the flashlight and keyboard on his phone was not sufficient to support a search warrant of the phone’s photos and messages. Such a search was too broad, in violation of Article I, Section 8 of the state constitution. However, there was sufficient evidence to support a search warrant for the phone’s locational data and flashlight use.
Commonwealth v. Kurtz, 2023 Pa. Super 72 (Apr. 28, 2023), per Colins, J., the Superior Court held that a warrant for internet searches by the defendant for a victim’s name and home address prior to the commission of a crime did not violate Article I, Section 8 of the state constitution. The court held that a suspect voluntarily relinquishes his privacy interest in an internet search by typing the query into the search engine because he has affirmatively turned over the contents of the search to a third party. Additionally, the search warrant did not violate the constitution because there was sufficient probable cause to believe that the perpetrator had searched for such information on the internet in preparation for the crime.
Commonwealth v. Goodis, 2023 WL 4833505 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (July 28, 2023), per Colins, J., the Superior Court held that law enforcement officers violated Article I, Section 8 of the state Constitution when they entered a residence without announcing their purpose while executing a search warrant. Article I, Section 8 requires police to announce their identity, purpose and authority, and give the occupant a reasonable period of time to let them in. While the law enforcement officers announced their identity, the Court did not find that they had a reasonable basis for not announcing their purpose before entering the house. The Superior Court suppressed the admission of evidence obtained during the search because it was unconstitutional.
Commonwealth v. Watkins, 2023 WL 6324420 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (September 29, 2023), per Stevens, P.J.E., the Court held that the use of a License Plate Reader system to track the movements of a person suspected of selling narcotics did not amount to an unreasonable search under either the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 8 of the state constitution. The suspect did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy because the purpose of a license plate is to provide public information and it is in plain view on a vehicle. Additionally, law enforcement’s inventory search of the suspect’s car did not violate either the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 8 because they had lawfully impounded the vehicle and acted in accordance with a reasonable, standard policy or inventorying the contents of the vehicle.
Commonwealth v. Jackson, 2023 WL 6302738 (Pa. 2023) (September 28, 2023), per Brobson, J., the Court writes that a law enforcement officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 8 of the state constitution by handcuffing a person who stated he was running from gun shots. Justices Wecht, Donohue, and Dougherty each wrote Opinions in Support of Reversal. Although the Supreme Court was equally divided on the decision, it affirmed the order of the Superior Court.
Overcash v. Dept. of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 2023 WL 8275625 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (Nov. 30, 2023), per Ceisler, J., the Commonwealth Court held that the evidence from a traffic stop that a driver was drunk was admissible during an appeal of a civil license suspension even if that evidence was obtained in violation of Section I, Article 8 of the state Constitution. The Court followed Fourth Amendment precedent and found that in criminal cases, evidence obtained pursuant to an unreasonable search and seizure must be excluded from consideration. Because the appeal of a license suspension is a civil case, the Court refused to apply the exclusionary rule.
Commonwealth v. Felder, 2023 WL 8828687 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (December 21, 2023), per Pellegrini, J., the Superior Court held that when an individual made the statement “you can search everything” to a police officer prior to the individual’s arrest, he did not give consent for the officer to search the car following the individual’s arrest. The Court stated that Article I, Section 8 affords greater protections against unreasonable searches and seizures than the Fourth Amendment and that absent one of a few clearly delineated exceptions, a warrantless search or seizure is presumptively unreasonable. One such exception is voluntary consent; however, the Court found that a reasonable person would not view the individual’s initial statement to “search everything” as blanket consent to search the entire vehicle, particularly after the individual had ben placed under arrest and disclaimed ownership of the vehicle.
Article I, Section 9:
Commonwealth v. Rivera, 2023 WL 4095438 (Pa. 2023) (June 21, 2023), per Brobson, J., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Commonwealth’s erroneous admission regarding a defendant’s post-arrest silence was not harmless and violated Article I, Section 9 of the State Constitution. Article I, Section 9 provides more protection than the Fifth Amendment because it prohibits the use of pre-arrest silence as substantive evidence of guilt. Justice Wecht wrote a Concurrence and Justice Mundy wrote a Concurrence in Part. Both Concurrences agreed with the Court’s holding that the admission of evidence violated the state Constitution.
Commonwealth v. Weeden, 304 A.3d 333 (Pa. 2023), per Todd, C.J., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that admission of a summary of gunshot sounds that was automatically created by a computer system into evidence did not violate the Confrontation Clauses of either the Pennsylvania or United States Constitutions. Article I, Section 9 and the Sixth Amendment establish the right of criminal defendants to be “confronted with the witnesses against him.” The court determined that the summary was nontestimonial in nature and thus was admissible because the Confrontation Clause only applies to testimonial statements.
Commonwealth v. Ganjeh, 2023 WL 5211575 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (Aug. 15, 2023), per Stevens, P.J.E, the Superior Court held that presentation of statements the defendant made to law enforcement officers prior to being informed of his Miranda rights did not violate Article I, Section 9 of the state Constitution or the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Under Article I, section 9, law enforcement must inform an individual who has been taken into custody of his Miranda rights before questioning him. The officers had placed the defendant in handcuffs and asked him what happened before informing him of his rights. However, the Court ruled that the defendant made voluntary and spontaneous statements to the police and that he was not subject to custodial interrogation because the officers handcuffed him for safety reasons and were unaware that a crime had been committed.
Commonwealth v. Fountain, 2023 WL 8643776 (Pa. Super Ct. 2023) (Dec. 14, 2023), per Lazarus, J., the Superior Court held that a person’s waiver of his right to counsel under Article I, Section 9 of the state Constitution in two previous trials did not constitute a waiver of the right in the third trial. Therefore, the court’s failure to administer any waiver of counsel colloquy before allowing an individual to proceed to represent himself at a third trial was impermissible.
Article I, Section 10:
Commonwealth v. Thomas, 2023 WL 5844106 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (September 11, 2023), per King, J., the Court held that a prosecutor’s failure to inform a defendant of the full breadth of an officer’s subsequent misconduct was not sufficient to prevent a retrial. The state constitution prohibits retrial of a defendant when the prosecution’s conduct intentionally or recklessly deprives the defendant of a fair trial. The Court found that the prosecution’s conduct did not amount to “prosecutorial overreaching” because the prosecution was not aware of the full breadth of the officer’s conduct at the time of the trial.
Verizon Pennsylvania LLC v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 2023 WL 6151814 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (September 21, 2023), per Wojcik, J., the Court held that the Public Utility Commission (PUC) violated neither Article I, Section 10 nor Article I, Section 17 of the state constitution by awarding a refund for unjust and unreasonable pole attachment rates. The PUC has the express authority to abrogate agreements between a public utility and any other party when it has found the terms are unreasonable. The Court held that the PUC did not violate Section 10 because its application of a refund based on a just and reasonable rate did not amount to an unlawful taking without just compensation. The Court found that Section 17, which prohibits laws impairing contract obligations, did not establish a cognizable claim because the PUC’s determination was closer to a judicial decision than a legislative enactment. Additionally, the Court found that the PUC’s actions did not violate the Takings Clause or the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution, which provide for the same rights as Article I, Section 10 and Article 1, Section 17, respectively.
Commonwealth v. Weiss, 2023 WL 6315318 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (September 27, 2023), per Murray, J., the Court held that the petitioner was not barred from a retrial trial under Article I, Section 10 of the state constitution because the prosecutor’s conduct amounted to a mere error. Section 10 bars retrial when prosecutorial misconduct is intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial or is intentionally undertaken to prejudice the defendant so that a fair trial is denied. Where the prosecutor’s error does not rise to a level of recklessness, a retrial is permitted.
Commonwealth v. Hind, 2023 WL 6562749 (Pa. Super. 2023) (Oct. 10, 2023), per Nichols, J., the Court held that the resentencing of two individuals convicted of a DUI was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the state and federal constitutions. Although the trial court should have considered that the individuals accepted Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition for prior DUI offenses in the sentencing hearing, the Court found that neither individual could be resentenced because they had already served the entirety of their sentence.
Commonwealth v. Pressley, 2023 WL 8453142 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (Dec. 6, 2023), per Kunselman, J., the Superior Court held that where a judge abused his discretion in declaring a mistrial, the defendant was protected by the double jeopardy clause of Article I, Section 10, which protects an individual from being retried for the same crime. The Court found that the judge erred in declaring a mistrial because there was a lesser solution available.
Article I, Section 11:
Grim v. Maxatawny Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 2023 WL 3745033 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (April 6, 2023), per Cannon, J., the Commonwealth Court held that a township’s board of supervisors’ application of the Ethics Act did not violate Article I, Section 11 of the state Constitution. The Ethics Act provides that when a governing body is unable to take any action on a matter due to members of the body abstaining from the vote, a public official may vote on a matter as long as they disclose their conflicts of interest.The court found that following the Ethics Act did not violate provisions of due process and that the board need not rule against the matter solely because its members have a conflict of interest.
Article I, Section 21:
Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League v. City of Pittsburgh, 2023 WL 2342404 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (Mar. 3, 2023), per Fizzano Cannon, J., the Commonwealth Court held that a settlement agreement provision stating a municipality must “abide and adhere to Pennsylvania law” is too vague to be enforceable. The City attempted to enact its own gun control laws, potentially in violation of Article I, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which gives citizens the right to bear arms. However, a vague “obey the law” provision is not a means by which a private party can challenge the constitutionality of a law.
Article I, Section 27:
Twp. Of Marple v. Pennsylvania Pub. Util. Comm’n, 2023 WL 2421090 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (Mar. 9, 2023), per Ceisler, J., the Commonwealth Court reversed an order by the Public Utility Commission, stating that the Commission is obligated to consider the environmental impact of planned building sites. The Commission erred by determining that it lacked the power to evaluate environmental impact when considering the reasonable necessity of a proposed public utility facility, and it was required to make that evaluation under Article I, Section 27 of the state constitution. To the extent that relevant statutes do not permit the Commission to consider environmental impact, those statutes are constitutionally invalid.
Marcellus Shale Coal. v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 292 A.3d 921 (Pa. 2023) (Apr. 19, 2023), per Donohue, J., the Supreme Court held that the General Assembly intended for the definition of “public resources” in a statute to be flexible so as to encompass the full array of resources implicating the public interest. The term “public resources” in the statute derives from Article I, Section 27 of the state constitution. Thus, the term “public resources” should be interpreted to have the same flexibility in definition so as to accomplish the same holistic goals as Section 27.
McNew v. East Marlborough Twp., No. 29 M.D. 2022 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (Apr. 26, 2023), per Covey, J., the Commonwealth Court held that a landowner need not exhaust all administrative remedies before filing a court case when challenging the constitutionality of a zoning officer’s decision under the Agriculture Communities and Rural Environmental Act (ACRE). Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required when challenging the constitutionality or validity of a statutory scheme, so the question of whether a landowner’s proposed use of the land was preempted by Article I, Section 27 was properly brought in the Commonwealth Court.
Article II, Section 1:
Matter of Harris, 2023 WL 2643194 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (March 27, 2023), per Covey, J., the Commonwealth Court held that a trial court violated the separation of powers doctrine in the state Constitution by creating an exception to the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) requirements for issuing an identification (ID) card. Article II Section 1, Article IV Section 2, and Article V Section 1 of the state Constitution establishes that the government of Pennsylvania is divided into three equal branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, and no branch may exercise the functions delegated to another branch. The DOT belongs to the executive branch and was legislatively granted the function of determining eligibility for an ID. Thus, the trial court, as part of the judiciary, violated the separation of powers of doctrine when it instructed the DOT to make an exception to the requirements for issuing an ID.
Ziadeh v. Pennsylvania Legislative Reference Bureau, 2023 WL 7170737 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (Nov. 1, 2023) and Bowfin KeyCon Holdings, LLC v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection, 2023 WL 7171547 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (Nov. 1, 2023) per Wojcik, J., the Court held that Pennsylvania’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative violates Article II, Section 1 and Article III, Section 9 of the state Constitution because it was not enacted by the Pennsylvania General Assembly. The Court determined that the Rulemaking constitutes a tax that has been imposed by the Department of Environmental Protection and the Environmental Quality Board.
Article II, Section 2:
Cutler v. Chapman, 2023 WL 383014 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2023) (Jan. 25, 2023), per Wojcik, J., the Commonwealth Court concluded that it would not issue a preliminary injunction affecting scheduling of the 2023 special elections for the state House of Representatives. Because the parties had all raised viable arguments as to who should be considered Majority Leader of the House and whether the question is justiciable, there is no clear right to relief by the courts. Additionally, delaying the elections unnecessarily would disrupt ongoing preparations and deny representation for an undue length of time, causing greater harm to the public interest than allowing a potentially improper or unconstitutionally scheduled election to proceed. The dismissal of the request for injunction in a prior order on January 13, 2023 was confirmed, though the court agreed to hear objections by intervening parties at a later date.
Article II, Section 11:
Costa v. Ward, 2023 WL 1830836 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (Feb. 9, 2023), per Leavitt, J., the Commonwealth Court declined to enjoin legislative subpoenas for election records held by the Department of State. Because the Senate Committee that issued the subpoenas had made no efforts to enforce them, no controversy existed and the matter was not ripe for review. The court determined that it could not interfere with the legislature’s constitutionally provided power to issue subpoenas, but that it could be asked to interfere in enforcement proceedings that are not resolved by the political process.
Pennsylvania Senate Intergovernmental Operations Comm. v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of State, 2023 WL 1830493 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (Feb. 9, 2023), per Leavitt, J., the Commonwealth Court declined to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the Secretary of State to produce records or comply with a legislative subpoena. Article II, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution grants the legislature the power to enforce its subpoenas, providing a remedy at law and precluding mandamus. The constitutional powers of subpoena granted to the legislature are not within the judiciary’s power to enforce.
Article III, Section 1:
Weeks v. Dept. of Human Services, 2023 WL 6300797 (Pa. 2023) (September 28, 2023), per Todd, C.J., the Court held that Act 12 of 2019, amending the Pennsylvania Human Services Code, did not violate Article III, Section 1 or Article III, Section 3 of the state constitution. Although the bill contained four subjects, the Court found that the it did not violate Section 3 because the subjects were germane to each other
and the bill as a whole has a “nexus to a common purpose.” Additionally, the bill did not violate Section 1 because the original purpose of eliminating Cash Assistance while favoring health benefits for low-income individuals remained unchanged during the legislative process and the final title of the bill was not deceptive.
Article IV, Section 4:
Synthes USA HQ, Inc., v. Commonwealth, 2023 WL 2145670 (Pa. 2023) (Feb. 22, 2023), per Donohue, J., the Supreme Court ruled that the Attorney General is not barred from advocating a legal position that is contrary to the interests of an individual executive agency. The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the entire Commonwealth and is accountable to voters, not to the governor or other executive agencies. However, when it advocates positions that further the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole but are adverse to the interests of an individual department, it is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct to notify the department of the conflict of interest.
Article V, Section 1:
In re Davis, 2023 WL 5315479 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (Aug. 18, 2023), per Curium, the Superior Court held that a trial court’s finding a Clerk of Court guilty of criminal contempt for her refusal to comply with a court order while outside of the courtroom was in accordance with the state Constitution. The courts’ authority to impose summary punishment for contempt is a power incidental to the grant of judicial power under Article V. The state’s criminal contempt statute requires misconduct, which includes conduct that occurs outside the courtroom but obstructs the administration of justice. The Court held that because the trial court heard the Clerk causing a commotion in the hallway while refusing to comply with the Order, her “bizarre conduct” amounted to criminal contempt.
Roberts v. Pennsylvania State Employees’ Retirement Board, 2023 WL 5942518 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (September 13, 2023), per Wojick, J., the Court held that an amendment to the Retirement Code which altered retirement plan options for state employees, including judges, did not violate Article V, Section 1 or Article V, Section 16(a). The Court found that the amendment did not violate Article V, Section 1’s requirement for a unified judicial system because all judges may elect the new classification regardless of when they entered the Retirement System. The amendment additionally did not violate Article V, Section 16(a) because it does not diminish any judge’s compensation.
Commonwealth v. McGee, 2023 WL 6300559 (Pa. 2023) (September 28, 2023), per Todd, C.J., the Supreme Court held that there was not a patent and obvious error in a sentencing order and thus did not answer the question of whether a trial court’s authority to correct such errors in the record could be limited by the Post Conviction Relief Act. In dissent, Wecht, J., writes that the judiciary’s authority to correct a patent error in a sentencing order cannot be limited by the legislature under Article V of the state constitution. Justice Donohue joined Justice Wecht’s dissenting opinion.
Article V, Section 10:
Rubin v. Paul A.R. Stewart Helm Legal Services, LLC, 2023 WL 2003961 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (Feb. 15, 2023), per McCaffery, J., the Superior Court concluded that an award of punitive damages against an attorney for wrongful use of civil proceeding is not inconsistent with Article V, Section 10 of the state constitution, which gives the sole power to punish attorneys to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Because the Rules of Civil Procedure note that sanctions “provide additional relief from dilatory or frivolous proceedings,” sanctions are not meant to be the exclusive means of relief against frivolous pleadings.
Article VI, Section 6:
Krasner v. Ward, 2023 WL 164777 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (Jan. 12, 2023), per Ceisler, J., a plurality of the Commonwealth Court concluded that the articles of impeachment issued against District Attorney Krasner do not comply with the requirements for impeachment proposed in the Pennsylvania Constitution. The constitutional amendment stating that “misbehavior in office” may be grounds for impeachment was passed in 1966, at which time “misbehavior in office” was a common law crime requiring the breach of a positive statutory duty or performance of a discretionary act with an improper or corrupt motive. Because the articles of impeachment pertain to discretionary decisions without allegations of impure motive, they do not create a constitutionally sound basis for impeachment or removal of the District Attorney. In a concurrence, Judge Wojcik withdrew a portion of his support for the original order. [This opinion follows a December 30, 2022 order by the Commonwealth Court declaring that the articles of impeachment are unconstitutional.]
Article VI, Section 7:
Martin v. Donegal Twp., 2023 WL 2920415 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (Apr. 13, 2023) per Covey, J., the Commonwealth Court held that a local statute changing the number of members on the Board of Supervisors violated Article VI, Section 7 of the state constitution as it effectively removed two elected officials before the end of their terms. Article VI, Section 7 is the exclusive means by which an elected official may be removed from office, which entails removal by the Governor after due notice, a hearing, and approval by two-thirds of the Senate.
Article VII, Section 10:
Downingtown Area Sch. Dist. v. Chester Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 2023 WL 6526193 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (Oct. 6, 2023), per Leavitt, J., the Court held that a school district’s tax reassessment appeal policy which was based upon a monetary formula may be permissible under the state Constitution. However, because the school district randomly applied the formula to 15 properties and left many underassessed properties, it violated the Article VII, Section 1 Uniformity Clause.
Sch. Dist. of Phila. V. Bd. of Revision of Taxes, 2023 WL 6527784 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (Oct. 6, 2023), per Leavitt, J., the Court held that a school district’s reassessment of underassessed properties violated Article VII, Section 1 of the state constitution because it was arbitrary and sought to assess certain properties at a higher percentage of fair market value than most other properties in the district.
Article XI, Section 1:
Wolf v. General Assembly, 2023 WL 2960813 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023) (Apr. 17, 2023) per Dumas, J., the Commonwealth Court sustained the preliminary objections of the General Assembly, stating that the issue of whether Senate Bill No. 106 violated Article XI, Section 1 of the Constitution was not ripe for adjudication. A claim is not ripe for adjudication if it depends on future harms that may or may not occur. Article XI, Section 1 requires that the House and Senate enter the representatives “yea and nay” votes on proposed amendments to the constitution, such as SB 106. Although the House and Senate failed to enter representatives’ votes, the court declined to make a decision on the constitutionality of the proposed bill because it has not yet passed the Senate.
Article XIII, Section 1:
GM Berkshire Hills LLC v. Berks Cnty. Bd. of Assessment, 290 A.3d 238 (Pa. 2023), The Supreme Court was equally divided on the question of whether the use of recent sales prices for increased tax assessments violates the Uniformity Clause in Article VIII, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Uniformity Clause prohibits systemic differential treatment of a subclass of property defined by factors such as neighborhood or the owner’s residency status. Justices Mundy, Wecht, and Brobson joined an Opinion in Support of Affirmance. Mundy, J. writes that the practice did not violate the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Instead, recent sale price was a neutral factor as it was used to focus on the non-uniform properties in the district regardless of the property’s use. Justices Donohue, Todd, and Dougherty joined in an Opinion in Support of Reversal. Donohue, J. writes that the district’s policy did violate the Uniformity Clause as it created a subclassification of property that disproportionately affected newly purchased properties. Justices Donohue and Dougherty joined in an additional Opinion in Support of Reversal. Dougherty, J. writes that the tax district’s policy creates unfairness and suggested that the legislature implement more frequent county-wide reassessments of all properties in each district so as to remedy the inequity caused by the Uniformity Clause. Because the Court was equally divided, the Commonwealth Court’s order allowing the tax assessment plan remains in place.