Jessen Associates, Inc. v. Bullock
1975 Tex. LEXIS 278, 531 S.W.2d 593, 19 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 117 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Texas Constitution, the Governor's line-item veto power is limited to vetoing 'items of appropriation,' which are specific allocations of money for a stated purpose. This power does not extend to vetoing legislative riders or provisions that merely authorize or direct the use of funds appropriated elsewhere in a bill.
Facts:
- The Texas Legislature passed a law requiring the College Coordinating Board to approve new university construction projects, unless a project was 'specifically approved by the legislature.'
- Subsequently, the Legislature passed a General Appropriations Act containing a rider that authorized The University of Texas Board of Regents 'to expend' funds from bond proceeds and other available moneys for several projects, including alterations to the Law School.
- The Governor of Texas issued a proclamation attempting to veto this specific rider.
- Despite the purported veto, the Board of Regents approved the Law School project and entered into a written contract with Jessen Associates, Inc. for architectural services.
- Jessen Associates performed preliminary work and submitted a claim for payment of $2,590.25.
- The Board of Regents approved the claim and issued a voucher directing the Comptroller of Public Accounts, Bob Bullock, to pay Jessen Associates.
- Comptroller Bullock refused to issue the payment warrant, asserting that the Governor's veto of the legislative approval rider was valid and that the project lacked the required approval from the Coordinating Board.
Procedural Posture:
- Jessen Associates, Inc. filed an original petition for a writ of mandamus directly with the Supreme Court of Texas, which serves as the court of first instance for this type of action.
- The petition sought to compel Bob Bullock, the Comptroller of Public Accounts, to issue a warrant for payment of architectural services.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a legislative rider in a general appropriations act that authorizes a state university to expend funds on specific projects, without itself appropriating new money, constitute an 'item of appropriation' subject to the Governor's line-item veto power under Article IV, Section 14 of the Texas Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Greenhill, Justice
No. A legislative rider that authorizes the expenditure of funds already appropriated elsewhere, but does not itself appropriate funds, is not an 'item of appropriation' and is therefore not subject to the Governor's line-item veto. The Governor's veto power is a legislative function granted by the Constitution and is strictly limited to either vetoing an entire bill or vetoing one or more 'items of appropriation' within such a bill. Citing Fulmore v. Lane, the court defined an 'item of appropriation' as a specific sum of money dedicated to a stated purpose, distinct from language that merely qualifies or directs the use of appropriated funds. The court determined that the Legislature's intent with the rider was not to appropriate money, as the funds were already appropriated elsewhere in the General Appropriations Act. Instead, the rider's purpose was to provide the 'specific approval by the legislature' required by the Texas Education Code to bypass the need for approval from the Coordinating Board. Because the rider was a directive and authorization, not an appropriation, the Governor exceeded his constitutional authority by attempting to veto it, rendering the veto ineffective.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches in Texas by narrowly construing the Governor's line-item veto authority. It establishes that the Legislature can embed non-appropriation directives and conditions within an appropriations bill, and the Governor cannot surgically remove these provisions without vetoing the entire bill. This precedent strengthens legislative control over policy implementation tied to state spending, allowing lawmakers to bypass certain agency approvals or dictate specific uses for funds in a manner insulated from the line-item veto. The decision thus provides the Legislature with a powerful tool to manage state projects and direct agency actions through the appropriations process.
