SAINT PAUL— The state’s Supreme Court has dismissed a lawsuit by the Legislature that argued that Gov. Mark Dayton violated the state’s constitution when he line item vetoed appropriations for the state House and Senate.

The court’s 5-1 decision, issued Nov. 16, found that the state’s constitution has placed few limits on the governor’s line item veto authority, and determined that the Legislature had access to adequate reserves to maintain its operations through the next legislative session, thus undermining the Legislature’s claim that Dayton had effectively abolished a co-equal branch of government. The high court also found that the dispute between the governor and legislators was political in nature, rather than constitutional, and was therefore ill-suited to judicial intervention.

The ruling ends a constitutional dispute that originated back in May at the end of the special session of the Legislature. In an effort to force the governor to sign a tax bill he strongly disliked, the Legislature had included a provision that would have stripped the Dept. of Revenue of operating funds in the event the governor vetoed the measure. While the governor opted to sign the tax bill, he line-item vetoed appropriations for the Legislature in an effort to force legislative leaders to take out provisions in the tax bill that the governor opposed. Rather than negotiate, GOP lawmakers filed suit alleging that the governor’s actions violated the constitution by overstepping the governor’s authority and undermining a co-equal branch of government.

But justices disagreed, noting that the constitution placed few limits on the governor’s veto authority. “The plain language of Article IV places only one substantive limit on the line item veto power, specifically, the requirement that the veto be made as to an “item” of “appropriation,” wrote Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea. “Where the language used is clear, explicit, and unambiguous, and free from obscurity, the courts must give it the ordinary meaning of the words used.”

The high court also determined that the Legislature had access to sufficient reserves— approximately $26 million— that it could utilize to maintain its operations through the next legislative session, which gets underway in February. The court cited holdover appropriations for both the House and Senate as well as the current appropriation for the Legislative Coordinating Commission, which oversees and funds a number of legislative functions.

“The factual question this case presents is whether the Legislature has the funding needed to exercise its constitutional duties on behalf of Minnesota’s citizens while it is in an interim adjournment and until it reconvenes,” wrote Gildea. “We conclude that it does.”

Finally, the court found that the principles of judicial restraint prevented them from weighing in on what was, in effect, a political dispute. “But our constitution does not require that the Judicial Branch referee political disputes between our co-equal branches of government over appropriations and statewide policy decisions when those branches have both an obligation and an opportunity to resolve those disputes between themselves.”

Gov. Dayton lauded the decision. “I am very pleased that the Supreme Court has upheld my line-item veto authority, which is established in the Minnesota Constitution. The Court has also found that the Legislature has access to at least $26 million to continue its full operations until it re-convenes in February. Therefore, there was no need for them to have initiated this lawsuit and imposed its costs on our state,” he said.

The Legislature offered no official statement on the ruling, but Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka, R-Nisswa, told the Star Tribune that he was “shocked” by the ruling. “It puts us in a very difficult spot. It feels like they didn’t really listen to the things that are going on,” he told the Minneapolis paper.

Justice Barry Anderson dissented from the court’s decision, while Justice David Stras did not take part in the deliberations.