Government Leaders Go Head-to-head In Supreme Court, Tribal Compacts

Some of the most powerful state leaders are going head-to-head in the State Supreme Court. After continued tension between the governor and tribes, lawmakers stepped in to extend two tribal compacts. State Supreme Court justices are now deciding if that move was constitutional.

“This case is about the legislature having done the impermissible,” said Trevor Pemberton, the general counsel for Governor Stitt.

“The legislature took the steps it felt it needed to take to protect the state's interest in continuing the compacts,” said Glenn Coffee, the attorney for Senate Pro Tem Greg Treat.

“It is my opinion that the legislature acted appropriately in passing these challenged acts,” said Attorney General Gentner Drummond.

Today attorneys for the governor, senate pro tem, speaker of the House, and the attorney general, all argued their sides in front of state justices. They were called into court to discuss a lawsuit filed by Stitt stemming from a special session over the summer. 

Stitt sued Senate Pro Tem Greg Treat and House Speaker Charles McCall after the House and Senate overrode vetoes on two bills dealing with tribal compacts. The bills extended the tobacco and motor vehicle compacts between the tribes and state for one year.

Lawmakers chose to extend for a year to give the governor additional time to come to a new agreement with tribal leaders.

Governor Stitt argued that was unconstitutional. “We're asking this court to set aside House bill 1005x and senate bill 26 as being clearly palpably and plainly inconsistent with the constitution,” said Pemberton.

Governor Stitt’s legal team argues the power to negotiate is exclusively with the governor. “Did the legislature engage in an executive function, it did. Did it use an unsanctioned process in order to do so, it did,” said Pemberton.

On the other side of the argument, are Treat’s attorney and Attorney General Drummond. “The governor confuses his executive role with that of the United States president,” said Drummond.

Drummond believes the governor’s negotiating power is statutory, meaning the legislature can step into negotiations if necessary. In this specific instance, lawmakers argued that Stitt was not doing his job to negotiate with the tribes. “An untold future if the legislature does not act where the governor failed the state, and this governor failed the state,” said Drummond.

The compacts that were extended by lawmakers bring in almost $60 million in revenue to the state each year. If the compacts were not extended, that money would be gone completely. “We could cascade into hundreds of millions of dollars,” said Drummond.

Drummond also argued that the matter at hand was already solved in the same court with Treat 1 and Treat 2. “Because it's the governor showing deference to a coequal branch they gave him the opportunity to argue but nothing new was addressed,” said Drummond.

Now it’s up to the Supreme Court justices to decide who has the power to compact, the governor, lawmakers, or both. “There's no doubt that this is a matter of imminent public concern and this court must immediately resolve the issue,” said Pemberton.

Drummond says he expects a decision from the Supreme Court within the week.

The full hearing can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocNVZEcabs0