The Kansas Supreme Court has confirmed that while Governor Laura Kelly has the right to litigate on behalf of her office and agencies in court, she does not have the right to litigate on behalf of the state as a whole.
“Today’s decision is a narrow one and plows no new legal ground,” the court wrote. “In sum, Governor Kelly’s quo warranto action began by asserting a vitally important claim that could not be easily ignored. She claimed that she — as the Governor of Kansas — had the legal authority to speak for the State in court. But she abandoned that claim.
“As reframed at argument, this court has not been asked to declare anything more than Governor Kelly’s constitutional authority to litigate on behalf of the interests of her office and those of the executive agencies she oversees.
“Likewise, the Attorney General does not object to the Governor representing her office and agencies in court when they are the real party in interest. We issue no holdings about the propriety of these legal positions — it is enough for us to recognize that, given the parties’ apparent agreement on the positions at issue under the Governor’s reframing, the parties do not present to us any disagreement we are equipped to resolve through the extraordinary mechanism of a quo warranto action.”
A “quo warranto” action is “by what right,” or “by what authority,” the court was essentially being asked to determine “by what authority” Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach asserted his office was the only one that could represent the State of Kansas in court.
The court said that because the parties’ positions were not in conflict, the petition should be dismissed.
Both sides claimed victory in competing press releases.
“The Kansas Supreme Court dismissed the Governor’s lawsuit because she conceded what we already knew — only the Attorney General can represent the interests of the state of Kansas in court as the state’s chief legal officer,” Kobach said in a release. “Although the Governor originally tried to challenge this point, she eventually abandoned her position because it was unsustainable.”
“The Court’s majority opinion recognizes that the Office of the Governor indeed does have an independent voice in litigation regarding matters that impact the executive branch and state agencies overseen by the governor,” Kelly said in a release. “This opinion acknowledges that the Attorney General conceded his blatant partisanship cannot undermine my administration’s efforts to protect and stand up for Kansans. If the Attorney General continues to refuse to stand up for the state, Kansans can be assured that I will.”
The lawsuit stems from a previous filing in which Kobach sued Kelly to force the administration to turn over SNAP Data to the federal government.
However, after months of intransigence, the administration of Governor Laura Kelly has finally turned over the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) data demanded by the United States Department of Agriculture.
Framing it as “a victory,” a release from Kelly’s office said the Department of Children and Families has agreed to turn over the data to USDA after the federal government “agreed to DCF’s terms,” and personal data “will not be shared with foreign governments.”
However, while USDA has asserted the authority to share personal information with foreign governments in the event of a violation of the law — such as perhaps fraud by foreign nationals — there is no indication that USDA has, or plans to do so, as federal law specifically authorizes.
